Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Alleged death of Agent Phil Coulson

I added the word "alleged" in front of the two references to the death of Agent Coulson in the article, as his death was never confirmed on camera, Nick Fury manipulated evidence of his "death" with the bloody trading cards, and actor Clark Gregg is known to be in talks to appear in subsequent movies as Agent Coulson. I believe that is ample evidence to include the word "alleged" in reference to the death of Agent Coulson.

Yet, someone later removed the word "alleged" that I had inserted, and now the page is locked to me. I believe it should be added back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koelpien (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as the movie goes, Coulson died. THt Fury manipulated the Avengers with his bloody cards is immaterial. It doesn't matter if Clegg is in discussions for subsequent appearances. For now, he's dead. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember, this is the Marvel universe. Dead does not mean dead for good.--Auric (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, its a movie about characters from that universe; the regular rules do not apply. Flippancy aside, unless we have some compelling citation noting Coulson is somehow alive, we don't speculate as to any fate other than the most obvious one, ie. he taking a dirt-nap. (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's far from clear that Coulson dies. We don't see him die, merely slip into unresponsiveness. We hear someone "call it" (or some such) and then we see Fury being manipulative. Also, he's not "allegedly" dead, he's "apparently" or "purportedly" dead. PRRfan (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above; our own Sherlocking doesn't override the plot itself. Do you have compelling citation that suggests Coulson is not dead? In the absence of that, our speculation doesn't get to go to a happy place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Just because we don't see a death certificate in High Noon doesn't mean Jack Palance's character "apparently" died. We could give similar examples for any movie in which a character dies and we don't get official medical confirmation. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. If Coulson reappears in Avengers 2 or whatever, we can come back and reassess. PRRfan (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

When I saw the movie, at the very end after the female Shield agent talks to Nick Fury and walks away, I thought it was Coulson walking up the path to talk to Nick Fury next. Can anyone confirm or deny this? It seemed like a sneaky clue to reveal he is alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yezzerat (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's exactyl what I thought when I saw that scene, too.--BECK's 09:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation clean-up and upkeep

The with the release there has been a lot of expansion particularity in the box office and critical response sections and as result the citations are in need of clean-up. Any help will be appreciated in moving these citations to references section, as well as adding full cite templates to those that are lacking and archiving. WebCitation.org is the most commons means of archiving in this article, which helps prevents link rot.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the information cited in the lead should be detailed in the body, if it is not already. The language there should be a pretty general summation of the article, with no references required.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be glad to help if it hasn't been fixed yet. Has all your citation problems been fixed yet? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

Thank you. Darkwarriorblake and Tenebrae did a good job yesterday but there are a few citations still in need of full cite templates and archiving. Also I made this topic to remind editors to do this properly when adding content.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you wanting all your citations archived? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, overtime they may become subject to link rot. We've done a good job doing this up to the release with the slew of new content.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I am familiar with link rot. I will see if there is any that hasn't been archived yet. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd tried both Archive.org and Webcitation.org to archive the Empire podcast, but neither worked for anything but the framing material. Usually audio and video are archiveable, so maybe someone more adept than me can figure out how to archive it. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanos - Possible Studio Sourced Refence

I am not making any argument one way or another, but another editor posted this as a reference on the Thanos article and I'd like to get consensus on whether it justifies adding his name to both articles. http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=33806 --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The interview starts about 1:00 after the spoiler warning, and while I have no idea what Kevin Feige sounds like, the person identified as him certainly identifies the master as Thanos. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The only place where we do not include Thanos' name is in the plot section because he is not identified on film, the rest of the article is supposed to take a real world perspective and as such is already mentioned by means of footnoting with this very source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So maybe I'm a bit out of the loop here (the last I saw we were not referring to him as Thanos at all since he had not been identified as such by the studio), but is the consensus now that he can be called Thanos elsewhere, ie in the Film section of the Thanos article here?--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, outside the plot section is free game with proper referencing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Records

This has been a continuing issue at the Harry Potter movies, where ardent fans throw in every record they can find, no matter how trivial or minutely parsed. "Opening weekend in May" is one such entry here. Outside of the trade, this is trivial and of no interest to non-fan general readers. Given that, I don't see how it doesn't violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are plenty of notable records here. "Opening weekend in May" is not notable unless you're professionally tracking for the film industry. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I find "the opening weekend in May" a bit supererogatory as The Avengers already broke the opening weekend of all-time so naturally it broke the opening record of May. However, in some cases, namely the Hunger Games, it is worth mentioning that it is the only film to have the biggest-opening weekend of April, because it didn't overcome the "all-time" record.Therefore, with a discussion among wikipedians, we can filter what is superfluous or necessary in order to ultimately have the records that would be most informative and useful. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, like "Biggest opening weekend" followed by "Biggest opening weekend for a superhero film"? One kind of requires the other to exist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice catches! I'll let another editor deal with that, though — I've opened enough of a can worms today...! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Cast list improvement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a proprosal to improve the cast list by adding a major character.

One proposed cast list is as follows;

Proposed cast list A

(cont'd)

• Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury:

The director of S.H.I.E.L.D., who was revealed in previous films to be coordinating the "Avengers Initiative". Jackson was brought to the project with a deal containing an option to play the character in up to nine Marvel films. In April 2011, Jackson's script was stolen and leaked on the internet after a digital copy was left in a printer. Jackson said he does more in The Avengers than in any of the previous films: "You don't have to wait until the end of the movie to see me". About the role, Jackson said, "It's always good to play somebody that is a positive in society as opposed to somebody who is a negative. . . I tried to make him as honest to the story and as honest to what real-life would seem." Jackson compared the character to Ordell in Jackie Brown, calling him "a nice guy to hang out with. You just don't want to cross him".

• Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill:

An agent with S.H.I.E.L.D. who works closely with Jackson's Nick Fury. Smulders, whom Joss Whedon once considered for his unproduced live-action Wonder Woman film, was selected from a short list of potential actresses including Morena Baccarin. Smulders' deal would integrate her into nine films. Regarding her preparation, Smulders said, "I hired this amazing black-ops trainer to teach me how to hold a gun, take me to a shooting range, how to hit, how to hold myself, how to walk and basically how to look. I don't do a ton of fighting in the movie, which is why I wasn't offered a trainer, but I wanted to look like I had the ability to." On relating to the character, Smulders said, "I can relate to her being a mom and being a businesswoman and trying to work full-time and raising a family and having a career. We're asked to do a lot of things these days. I feel she is just all about her job and keeping things going."

Clark Gregg, Stellan Skarsgård, and Gwyneth Paltrow reprise their roles from previous films as Phil Coulson, Erik Selvig, and Pepper Potts, respectively. Paul Bettany returns to voice JARVIS. Frequent Whedon collaborator Alexis Denisof portrays the Other, and Damion Poitier portrays his master in a post-credit scene. Avengers co-creator Stan Lee has a cameo appearance in a news report. Harry Dean Stanton also has a cameo as a security guard.

• • - Note that actor Clark Gregg/character Phil Coulson are relegated to a mere blurb at the bottom of the page. Yet, Agent Coulson has a more prominent role in this film than say, Maria Hill, and is in fact part of a major plot point within the film. Gregg is credited equally with Smulders in the end crdits on screen. Coulson is a significant recurring character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, appearing in 4 of 6 films so far, second only to Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury. With that said, perhaps Gregg should appear in the cast list. The following is a proposed entry;

Proposed cast list B

(cont'd)

• Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury:

The director of S.H.I.E.L.D., who was revealed in previous films to be coordinating the "Avengers Initiative". Jackson was brought to the project with a deal containing an option to play the character in up to nine Marvel films. In April 2011, Jackson's script was stolen and leaked on the internet after a digital copy was left in a printer. Jackson said he does more in The Avengers than in any of the previous films: "You don't have to wait until the end of the movie to see me". About the role, Jackson said, "It's always good to play somebody that is a positive in society as opposed to somebody who is a negative. . . I tried to make him as honest to the story and as honest to what real-life would seem." Jackson compared the character to Ordell in Jackie Brown, calling him "a nice guy to hang out with. You just don't want to cross him".

• Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill:

An agent with S.H.I.E.L.D. who works closely with Jackson's Nick Fury. Smulders, whom Joss Whedon once considered for his unproduced live-action Wonder Woman film, was selected from a short list of potential actresses including Morena Baccarin. Smulders' deal would integrate her into nine films. Regarding her preparation, Smulders said, "I hired this amazing black-ops trainer to teach me how to hold a gun, take me to a shooting range, how to hit, how to hold myself, how to walk and basically how to look. I don't do a ton of fighting in the movie, which is why I wasn't offered a trainer, but I wanted to look like I had the ability to." On relating to the character, Smulders said, "I can relate to her being a mom and being a businesswoman and trying to work full-time and raising a family and having a career. We're asked to do a lot of things these days. I feel she is just all about her job and keeping things going."

• Clark Gregg as Phil Coulson:

An agent with S.H.I.E.L.D. who oversees many of the division's field operations. Gregg was first cast in the role for Iron Man (2008), and subsequently made appearences in Iron Man 2 (2010) and Thor (2011) after signing a multi-picture deal with Marvel Studios. Gregg also stars in a series of Marvel short films that center around his character and can be seen on the Blu-ray releases of the films. Said Gregg; "I didn’t have any idea that they would bring me back in Iron Man 2 and taking care of business in Thor and when Joss pulled me aside at San Diego ComicCon promoting Thor and said "I want to introduce you as part of the cast of The Avengers".… "and he said "I’m really going to use your character in a big way."

Stellan Skarsgård and Gwyneth Paltrow reprise their roles from previous films as Erik Selvig and Pepper Potts, respectively. Paul Bettany returns to voice JARVIS. Frequent Whedon collaborator Alexis Denisof portrays the Other, and Damion Poitier portrays his master in a post-credit scene. Avengers co-creator Stan Lee has a cameo appearance in a news report. Harry Dean Stanton also has a cameo as a security guard.

• • - The notation and references are both appropriate and fitting, along with the rest of the cast list. If people feel the Gregg entry could/should be improved - great, but anything's better than just reverting/deleting. - thewolfchild 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed change, contains no information unique to this film and is nothing but mere filler that is rehashed from the character's stand alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So you are in favour of improving the entry and keeping it in the cast list? - thewolfchild 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not in that state, add specific Avengers content if you wish but adding filler just for the sake of having something isn't constructive.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So you do agree he should be on the list. Just what "Avenger specific content" would you suggest go into his entry? - thewolfchild 00:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. The entry has been changed, so... how about now? - thewolfchild 01:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. I mean specific insightful information about the actor's performance, motivations, preparations, etc in this film. I'll try to hunt for any useful info tomorrow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Straw polling is fine but Wikipedia is not a democracy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just looking for consensus. What's the big deal? - thewolfchild 02:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Because concensus is not based on vote and your accusation of bad faith is disheartening.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing disheartening here is your myopic intransigence. - thewolfchild 14:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thats a shame, I guess we're now resorting to personal attacks. I said I'd be willing to help find some relevant information, and I guess you haven't bothered to look at that the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The shame here is that including Gregg in the cast list was an obvious move you failed to make. When I first added him, you simply dismissed it with your intractable need to control the content of your this article. Then once you saw that others agreed, you actually had to put aside your arrogant condescension and make the change - your way. And now that it's done, I'm supposed to forget your little straw-man shot and fall to my kness in thanks to your wonderful benevolence? And, let's not forget I tried asking you about this on your talk page and you simply ignored me. ('glass houses, bro) Anyway, the cast list is now that way I wanted it and I could really care less about you and your nonsense. We're done here. - thewolfchild 01:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong, your assumption of bad faith in other editors is beyond disheartening. If you really think I own the article, I advice you take it up with the appropiate noticeboard but I can tell you that this article and my work here has been a collaborative effort, any of the articles regular contributors can attest to that. There was no conspiracy to not include Gregg, I have no personal agenda against him in fact I rather like the character. If you notice the sources I included were all published LAST WEEK, the majority of the cast section was put together months ago.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(sigh... Apparently we're not done) Look, let's keep this simple shall we? From the beginning: Considering the make-up of the cast list at the time (3 days ago) I felt that Gregg should be included. I made an edit to that effect. You dismissed it - outright. I disagreed with you. I brought the issue in general to the article talk page. I made it clear that the content of the entry wasn't important. I listed the two versions to see if anyone else agreed with me, simply because I didn't care for the way you dismissed the idea.

I also asked you, politely, about your personal reasons for your decision on your talk page. I even complimented you on your work. This went ignored. Instead, on the article talk page, you quite bluntly complained about the content of the entry - again, even though I made it clear that wasn't an issue. I then - again, asked you about having an entry in the first place, regardless of content and you ignored me - again.

After, again, asking about an entry, you finally stated you would look for the content yourself. But then immediately after you accused me of "straw-polling" and felt you needed to quote/preach about WP:Democracy. (both unnecessary and a little rude)

By then it was getting to be a bit much. I clarified that I was seeking consensus, which is allowed, and I used your own little quote method to raise the ownership policy, which quite frankly, you were brushing up against (IMO). You then lecture me on consensus vs. voting, falsely accuse me of claiming bad faith, and lay on your little 'disheartening' guilt trip. And it pretty much goes on like that. But, seriously, who is the 'chicken' and who is the 'egg' in this whole scenario? You may not care for my reactions here, but they're just that, re-actions. You really feel you couldn't have handled this any better from the beginning? - Now that's disheartening. And even when I said this was done, you couldn't let it go. You ceratinly aren't being helped by your little friends, Mr. Nole, Mr. Blake and Mr. Tenebray, with their ridiculous comments. They are disingenuous to the point of embarrassment.

"Assuming bad faith"? Hardly... - thewolfchild 05:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"I made it clear that the content of the entry wasn't important" ergo your fallacy. Content is everything. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We do not add information for the sake of having information. After I reverted your edit (with the edit summary "very little is avengers specific") and if you still weren't sure why, you should have came here asked why and sought to improve it instead of re-reverting then asking to vote for either "A" or "B". From the start you assumed bad faith asking "why have you sought to preclude Gregg/Coulson" as if I had an agenda. You accuse me ownership then you talk about 'getting what you want'. Its not about what either of us want but what is best for the article. Good faith is to assume that we both want what is best for the article, even if we disagree about what the best is, without assumed malicious intent.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you would use the word "fallacy". If I were to assume GF, then I would have to assume that you are not deliberately mischaracterizing this situation with your latest comments. So I will try to clear this up. My objective was to have Gregg included in the cast list. That was the goal, not just a 'first step' to dumping in any random info. I posted the (then) current list which excluded him, then followed with my inclusive example. I thought I made it clear that given the addition of Smulders, and taking Gregg's role into consideration, he should be included. At no point did I write "must be included solely the way I wrote it - no exceptions". In fact, what I did write was "If people feel the Gregg entry could/should be improved - great, but anything's better than just reverting/deleting." I thought it was obvious that it was the content of my example that wasn't important, not what would go into the final draft for the article. So, you are (good faithedly) mistaken and your "Content is everything..." lecture was unnecessary. (Look again, I asked repeatedly about having an entry, without debating the content of the entry)

Issue #1 - Should Gregg have a entry in the cast list. I believe so. It would seem others agree. I just don't care for the way you outright dismissed the idea, instead of at least giving consideration to some acceptable alternatives. But, the entry is there now so, issue resolved.

Issue #2 - The content of the entry. Again, I think it's clear I didn't have an issue here. I welcomed any changes or improvement to my example. I took no issue with what you ultimately came up. In fact, I'm glad it's a good entry. Issue resolved.

Issue #3 - Conduct. I brought it to the talk page to discuss. Again, I was initially focused on getting an answer from you as to whether an entry was even 'do-able' and getting some opinions from other users. Perhaps you didn't understand or agree with the way I went about it, but it was you, my friend, that started with the "straw-polling", "WP:DEM", "WP:VOTE", "Bad faith" and "disheartening" comments. I started out with compliments and questions, you started out with 'dismissive neutrality' and became negative. I followed. (doesn't look good for either of us) And I'll say it again, some of your 'friends' were no help. Most of their comments were simply ridiculous. I know I'm a smart-ass. Do you think you could've done anything better? Funny thing is, in the end, we don't even disagree about what went into the article. - thewolfchild 17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It was not clear, as anything is not better and given a choice between "A" or "B", which appeared to be a request for a vote. I only outright dismissed your edition to the article for the reasons stated above and said feel free to "add specific Avengers content if you wish" and that I'll help find useful information". "Straw-polling" is not a negative accusation, as I said "Straw-polling is fine", which it is. I just wanted to remind you that it is not a majority rules method of determining consensus. In the same comment you left on my talk page complimenting me, you accused me of deliberately seeking to preclude Gregg, which was a bad faith assumption and an accusation you reinforced here. I no where stated that Gregg's entry is not to be expanded.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones... - thewolfchild 11:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Also let me remind you of the actual occurance of events you started this topic at 20:09, May 8, 2012 and left a comment on my talk page at 20:22, May 8, 2012, so why would I respond to you there when you already started a topic here?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And I would remind you that you ignored my question and my compliment, but apprently I don't have to. Even after I removed my own post, you re-posted it, still without a response, as some kind of monument to your own rudeness.

Anything else? - thewolfchild 05:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So 99.230.134.118 is you. You should be careful to always sign in so you are not falsely accused of sock puppetery.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I should have signed in. (I'm not the only using this pc) But I'm sure you can tell this wasn't an attempt at sock puppetry. I've already commented here that I had made that edit. I would've tried again with my id to show it was me, but what's the point? For some reason you want want that post there. Oh well, at least at shows that I started out being civil, even complimentary. Smart-ass comments aside, I have posed some serious questions regarding your conduct here. Why is it that you won't address any of that, yet you feel the need to jump on some innocuous edit and use it as a veiled accusation? - thewolfchild 15:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See above.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The shame is that you think Gregg was omitted when he was in fact in the cast section, you just were not happy with the status given to him, because in your opinion he is a major character. Which is POV, and accusing TripleThreat of owning the page because of it is childish at best. In my opinion (POV) he's a minor character at best in the other films and a supporting character here, he shouldn't even be in the infobox, his is not a starring role and there was billing given very specifically to eight people. Quite frankly Gregg had the amount of space he required and if anything Smmulders is over represented. I notice you aren't complaining about Skarsgard not being up there even though he is apparently notable enough to go in the infobox and have a supporting role in the same amount of films as Gregg and was part of a major plot point since the end of the film doesn't happen without him.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The shame is that you can't seem to just read what I wrote, instead of trying to tell me what I'm thinking and feeling there, 'Carnac'

- He was "omitted" - from the cast list. I disagreed with that. So do others.

- I never claimed he was a "major character". I simply pointed out his prominence in comparison to Hill.

- I gave no "POV", I simply stated facts.

- I could care less about your "POV". If you feel he's such a minor character that he shouldn't be in the list, then change it. Then after I revert you, make a case for your edit on the talk page. (wiki:101)

- I gave no opinion regarding Skarsgard. You want him in the cast list, then make a case for it. (But don't go by "number of films"... you're a little off on that one)

- Was this the point of your post? Insult me and put words in my mouth? Thanks, but no thanks. - thewolfchild 06:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you not write " Note that actor Clark Gregg/character Phil Coulson are relegated to a mere blurb at the bottom of the page. Yet, Agent Coulson has a more prominent role in this film than say, Maria Hill, and is in fact part of a major plot point within the film. Gregg is credited equally with Smulders in the end crdits on screen. Coulson is a significant recurring character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, appearing in 4 of 6 films so far, second only to Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury. With that said, perhaps Gregg should appear in the cast list. The following is a proposed entry;"? If not you might wish to clarify that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OMIGAWD! You got me! I did write that. What was I thinking? I'm so, so... um, wait sec... So what? You need this "clarified"? OK, here goes...

- "Note that actor Clark Gregg/character Phil Coulson are relegated to a mere blurb at the bottom of the page." - I wrote that - Because. He. Was.

- "Yet, Agent Coulson has a more prominent role in this film than say, Maria Hill..." - Which. He. Did.

- "...and is in fact part of a major plot point within the film." - Which. He. Was.

- "Gregg is credited equally with Smulders in the end credits on screen." - Which. He. Is.

- "Coulson is a significant recurring character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe..." - Which. He. Also. Is.

- "...appearing in 4 of 6 films so far, second only to Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury." Iron Man + Iron Man 2 + Thor + Avengers = 4 (the other 2 being Incredible Hulk and Capt. America to make 6) This doesn't even include the upcoming Iron Man 3, Marvel One Shots and Ultimate Spider-Man (TV series)

- "With that said, perhaps Gregg should appear in the cast list." - Which. He. Now. Does.

- Clear enough? Maybe you could "clarify" just what your point is? If you have one... - thewolfchild 10:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A or B?

• B - I vote to include Agent Coulson in the cast list. - thewolfchild 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• B. he should be there. 206.47.78.150 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• B – I don't see a problem with adding the new info, even if it's mentioned on the character's article or anywhere else. It helps provide a more rounded view of the movie without having to search through other articles. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• A - First, to note that consensus is not based on a vote. Secondly, the only reason I would say to not have a section for Coulson is because everything that is currently being proposed is not relevant to this film. His section is 90% copy and paste from his individual article, and deals with his appearances in stories OUTSIDE of this film. Articles should not mirror each other in such a way, so if there is not independent information about the character in THIS film, then at this time he shouldn't have a section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• B - Res Ipsa Loquitur. (um, nole, are ya sure it's "90%"? I could've sworn it wasn't anywhere above 84%) Anyway, can you or your friend show me where I used the word 'vote'? As for the cast list addition, it wasn't a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposal. Obviously the content of the addition could be changed, just as it was obvious that Gregg/Coulson should be in the cast list in the first place. But I agree with you on one point; some things here shouldn't mirror each other... - thewolfchild 01:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• B --Boycool † (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• A -- First, why is User:Thewolfchild voting twice? Second, as User:Bignole rightly notes, we're here to reach a consensus, which may mean a compromise. Just because one editor gives two and only two options in no way means that these are our only two choices. Third, with all due respect to the fine and charismatic character actor Clark Gregg, this isn't a fan site, and we're not there to provide filler just to pump up his cast-list mention. If he has substantive things to say about forming the character and filming the character specific to this movie, that's worth looking at. Otherwise, no. And finally, just on principle, I would prefer not to reinforce Thewolfchild's inexcusable name-calling and belligerence, especially against someone who has proven himself time and again to be a hard-working, meticulous editor who has helped Marvel Cinematic Universe articles achieve Good Article status. Thewolfchild's behavior, including his immature snarkiness to Bignole just above, should not be tolerated nor rewarded. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• B - If this wasn't so amusing, I'd be tempted to just move on. But...

You need to take a moment and catch your breath... you seem to be missing some things. It would be easy for me to say "go back a read everything", but apparently you need things spelled out.

- First, the cast list as it was 3 days ago was simply wrong. Gregg/Coulson should have been included, as he is now. Now when I tried adding him, my edit was summarily and arbitrarily reverted as "not Avenger enough", by Mr. Threat, with no effort on his part to recognize the issue or make improvements. SO - I brought the issue to the talk page. I posted the current version (A) with a note as to why I found it unacceptable and I then added the edit with Gregg included in the cast (B) to illustrate my point, with another note that specifically stated; "If people feel the Gregg entry could/should be improved - great, but anything's better than just reverting/deleting." FOLLOWING that, Mr. Threat simply criticised the content of the entry (despite my comment) and blatently ignored the the idea of having an entry made to the cast list, again.

- Second, then I'm admonished for "straw-polling". I simply replied with a comment that I was seeking consensus. Now, up to this point, where have I do anything wrong? I am simply trying to make an obvious improvement to the article. But, apparently since I don't have my wiki-comic-book-club-decoder-ring, my edits don't mean anything. You have the nerve to come to my talk page and preach about how all you avenger editors are so wonderful, polite and hard-working, making the wiki-world a better place while you hold hands singing kum-bah-yah, yet look at hostile, elitist attitude I and some others here have been met with. We all want to appreciate the work you guys put into this, but you make it hard to care - at all. And, at the end of the day, this is not your aticle.

- Here is an article you need to look up: Hypocrisy (seems I can't post this enough). Don't you and the rest of the fan-boys presume you can preach "wiki-civil-this" and "wiki-ediquette-that" while at the same time, using improper reverts, violating wiki-policies, blatently lying with straw-man rhetoric and throwing out insults like "belligerant", "immature", "snarky", "childish", etc. Your comments following your "vote" might be called BS, IF they made sense;

"...why is Thewolfchild voting twice"? - It's "not a vote", remember?

"...as Bignole rightly notes, we're here to reach a consensus..." - Um, I'm the one who said we were looking for consensus.

"...one editor gives two and only two options..." - Could you possibly get that more wrong?

"...with all due respect to...Gregg, this isn't a fan site, and we're not there to provide filler just to pump up his cast-list..." - Jeepers, there you go again. Did I not make it clear that the content of the entry was not important? And just how am I trying to turn this page into a "fan site"

And you "vote" for 'A"? Riiight... you really believe Gregg should be kept off the cast list? That just confirms how silly your comments here are. Quite frankly, since you and Mr. Nole "voted" out of spite instead of common sense (and my second "vote" was in jest to all this nonsense), it seems that the consensus was in favour of my idea by a count of 4-0 (which is now a moot point since the cast list is now the way I wanted it anyway).

Look again. You will see I started out "playing nice" and then only met hostility with hostility. I may be more colourful and blunt, but who cares, Wikipedia has got alot more bigger problems (including you and your crew). The real question here is, since you seem man enough to speak up for your friends, are you really man enough to admit when your wrong?

("Here endeth the lesson." - Malone) - thewolfchild 04:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your behavior is obsessive, and "colourful and blunt" are euphemisms for impolite and uncivil. "Man enough" is juvenile taunting. If you really think all the other editors are ganging up on poor you and behaving out of spite and not in the best interests of this article or Wikipedia, that's simply incorrect. You call yourself "child" in your own Wikipedia tag, and that's exactly how you're behaving. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So you do admit you were wrong. Good for you, I knew you could do it. Admitting you have a problem is an important first step to good mental health. You obviously have a long way to go, but good luck! We're all rootin' for ya'. - thewolfchild 11:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

?? Your post made no sense. I would also caution that if there's a particular etiquette line admins really don't want to see crossed, it's when you start making personal comments about mental health. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Tu quoque - thewolfchild 00:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cast list question

A question has been raised regarding Stellan Skarsgard and the cast list. At present, it has been noted that he is the only cast member listed in the infobox that is not part of the list. I am simply posting this to create discussion and seek opinions. I do not have an opinion myself either way. This is not a vote. The entry posted below is merely an example of what a potential entry might appear as. I am not putting this forward as a an actual proposed entry itself, rather just using it to ask two simple questions; 1) Should he be a part of the cast list (and/or infobox for that matter) and, 2) what content do users feel the entry should contain?

• Stellan Skarsgård as Dr. Erik Selvig

An astrophysicist first seen in the film Thor, an now part of a multi-picture deal that will see him reprise the role a third time in Thor 2 Skarsgard [stated] that he is excited about his role in 'The Avengers' as he has something new to do in the movie this time around. The actor insisted that his role is a bit different from Thor and is hopeful of the film’s success. “I haven’t seen the film yet but it’s the same character as in the first Thor film, although something happens in The Avengers which changes him and which gave me the pleasure of playing something different,” he concluded.

Discuss. - thewolfchild 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Like Gregg, I do not have a problem with Skarsgård's entry being expanded as long as he has insightful information to add. This specific example could use more work. Being excited about a role and hopeful for its success, really isn't that notable (for lack of better term) because I'm sure every actor feels the same way. "The actor insisted that his role is a bit different" is a good start but he fails to mention how exactly it is different. More specific insight into the role, preparation, methods, etc would be useful. I hope this is taken as constructive criticism and not taken personally.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the content of this example is not sufficient for inclusion in the article (nor did I expect it would be). I do not take anything you (or anyone elsefor that matter) say(s) personally. That would be silly. - thewolfchild 11:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Staying on topic. If you feel Skarsgard warrants inclusion in the cast list, then perhaps you would like to craft an entry you find suitable. If however you feel he shouldn't be in the list (and/or infobox) then perhaps you could provide some rationale for that. - thewolfchild 00:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Thanos in this section

We could refer to Thanos by name in the cast section, could we not, given that it's not the plot? - Chris McFeely (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's already there, in the Damion Portier mention. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick Fury link

I thought I'd give you TOW bureaucrats something easy to talk about for a change. Shouldn't all the instances of Nick Fury in the article be piped to the article on Ultimate Nick Fury, since they are in the Iron Man 2 article (and for other obvious reasons)? 71.251.141.211 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, while the Utimate version is based on Jackson's likeness, the film version is an amalgamation of both the 316 and the Ultimate characters which is why we link to the parent article as does the IM2 article (if one doesn't let us know and we'll correct it).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

LEGO as a Promotional Partner

Under the "Promotional Partners" section, shouldn't LEGO be listed because of the LEGO Superheroes sets based on the film. To see the sets I am talking about, go to [1].--50.99.246.37 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

International title

Journalistic sources in the UK, in their reviews, give the film's title as Avengers Assemble. If the British ratings board is the sole source for "Marvel Avengers Assemble," then it is is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Even on the US print, the world "MARVEL" in a red box pops up onscreen a few seconds after "The Avengers" appears, and you see that box with "The Avengers" underneath. That doesn't mean the US film is title "Marvel The Avengers." It's just a branding logo — not part of the title.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, if you look closely at the credits on the U.S. movie poster (bigger size here), the official title does appear to be "Marvel's The Avengers". It also seems to be the main title for the movie used on the MPAA's film ratings website. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 19:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Not "Marvel's The Avengers." The word clearly is "Marvel", singular. That's quite different. No one is saying the onscreen title is "Marvel The Avengers."

The official Disney press materials calls it “Marvel’s The Avengers”, but as that's not the onscreen title, and as Disney is not telling journalists that that's the title, it's clear that this simply contractually phrasing. No journalistic content, whether review or article, calls it either "Marvel The Avengers" or "Marvel's The Avengers." --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've said above, in the UK at least, the official title must be Marvel Avengers Assemble, as this is what has been submitted to the BBFC. No film can be shown in the UK without BBFC classification. If any alteration is made to a film after a classification has been made, the process must be repeated. Saying that the body that is required to classify films in the UK is a fringe source is like saying the US Supreme Court or the EPA are fringe sources.

Let me put it another way, if the name of the film is not Marvel Avengers Assemble in the UK then laws are being broken by the distributor and cinemas. Journalists may use a common name, in my own review I soon switched to The Avengers, but as far as UK law is concerned the BBFC classified title stands. The "International Title" can be anything you want, but the "UK Title" contains three words. -- Iscariot (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The law doesn't say that the BBFC titles films. Only the film's creators can do that. And from what I see on the BBFC site, various versions of the film/marketing materials say Avengers Assemble, not Marvel Avengers Assemble. So which title has the BBFC "given" the film?

"Fringe" in this case doesn't mean that it's not an august body. It means it's the only one of a very large number of reliable sources, including multiple British newspapers and magazines, giving that title. (And as I said, only sort of giving it — it lists two titles on its site.) --Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the law says that the BBFC classifies all films, which includes the titles. The film was submitted as Marvel Avengers Assemble and thus this is what the film is officially called in the United Kingdom. Common names may avail in press coverage and even when stars and director talk about it, but the film name cannot be changed without reclassification. Otherwise some producer could submit a version of Snow White and get a PG certificate and then change the title to Brunette Orgy with Seven Guys in a Forest and retain that same PG classification. I point you towards the Teenage Mutant Ninja/Hero Turtles fiasco on this.

As to your claim above that no journalistic content uses Marvel Avengers Assemble in any context, from the first page of Google results I get The Independent, MTV UK, The Telegraph (which shows the official title whilst using the common name in its title) and SFX (which actually comments on the retitling from the US version). How many do you want? -- Iscariot (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not responding to the fact that the BBFC lists two different titles on its page for the movie.

Also, it's not what I want, it's what the consensus of all the various editors are. And that's far from decided. Even the British papers don't have a consensus: The Telegraph headline reads "Avengers Assemble, review" and gives "Avengers Assemble" in the boldface end-tag, while the body uses "Marvel Avengers Assemble" once.

But it's good to have examples. Let's give other editors besides us a chance to debate this. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Except the BBFC site lists the movie as Marvel Avengers Assemble. The only other references are to trailers, The official title of the film is "Marvel Avengers Assemble" in the UK. Any film that is shown in the cinema in the UK has to be registered against it's official title with the BBFC. There is no question. If we aren't listing the cameo at the end of the film because they don't give the character a name in the film itself, then we DO list what we've been given OFFICIALLY. 109.149.143.72 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The trailers aren't for a different movie. The trailers are for a movie called "Avengers Assemble," according to the BBFC. Therefore, the BBFC is giving two titles for the same movie — both official, under the laws you're describing. (And I assume you're both laymen and not attorneys specializing in this, so what the specifics of the laws are is something we don't know.) My guess, judging from the fact the BFFC is giving it two titles, is that the BFFC is calling it something, arbitrarily or erroneously, that the filmmakers and Disney do not. Unless you're saying the BFFC has the power to change film titles. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What does the actual film say when the title cards are rolling? That's what you need to look at. Film posters are not always accurate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It says "Marvel Avengers Assemble" I'd have taken a photo but I'd rather not have been kicked out of the cinema. --Plkrtn (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are missing the point. The trailers were titled before the film was retitled. The BBFC do NOT give the film two titles. The film itself is entitled "Marvel Avengers Assemble" as registered to the BBFC by the production company, Walt Disney Pictures. The page sourced clearly lists the film, registered on 16th April 2012, by the company WDSMP UK (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pcitures UK), at a run time of 142m 37s as "Marvel Avengers Assemble". It is here, clear as day to see. The trailers, etc are irrelevant as these are not articles about the trailers, this is an article about the film. --Plkrtn (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Another case in point. The film The Pirates! In An Adventure with Scientists which was originally titled The Pirates! Band of Misfits in the UK, and in some other territories. The film had trailers under both names, but was released as with the scientists name. This is how the BBFC operates. --Plkrtn (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is good. Discussion. Since the form for slash dates is different in the US and the UK, with months and day reversed, it's not immediately apparent to American eyes that the listing on that page is chronological, with the latest appearing last. So, yes, there is one title, Marvel Avengers Assemble, that the BFFC gives for the film and its trailers and TV spots. However, unless the BFFC can title a film, that's not an official source for the film's title. No official source for anything can be any outside party. Th only official source in the case of movies is the owner, i.e. the studio, itself.

Yes, there's a red box that says "MARVEL" onscreen. It's there in the US version, too. That doesn't mean the US version is titled "Marvel The Avengers." No more so than when a producer/director's credit appears onscreen while the title is there — that doesn't make it (hypothetical example here) "Gone with the Wind a David O. Selznick Production".

We need to know what Disney itself calls it. Nothing I can see at the BFFC page says what Disney calls it, just what the BFFC calls it. Maybe Disney called it that, but certainly nothing on the page confirms that. And given that no other country seems to call it anything but "Avengers Assemble," it's a legitimate question as to whether Disney called it that solely for the UK and nowhere else or whether the BFFC mistakenly took a branding logo and called it part of the title.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The source lists the BBFC, the film classification board that all films released in the UK MUST register their film with, with their OFFICIAL title in order to be released in the UK. The registration is done by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures UK, the UK distributor of the film, as is the legal requirement. The Marvel UK official site is also listed with the name on the page's title clearly marked as Marvel Avengers Assemble. Thirdly an article from the UK newspaper The Guardian discusses whether the title "Marvel Avengers Assemble" is one of the worst titles for a film ever. Three independently sourced pieces of content. The BBFC can't mistakenly take a logo branding as part of the title because the registration requirements of the film lie with the distributor and NOT the BBFC. --Plkrtn (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) Tenebrae, you're not grasping the point. The BBFC isn't renaming the film, the production (or more likely distribution) company is. The BBFC writes the name on the certificate that they're given. The various companies involved can call their trailers whatever they want (assuming they're willing to deal with any upgrade in rating for that trailer) but no company is required to maintain that name on the finished product. Indeed we've seen trailers for films that have never existed, Nic Cage's Superman, but it doesn't mean that the next Superman movie had to keep that name. There is one certificate, and therefore one name that film is legally called in the United Kingdom. The companies involved are even entitled to change the name again when they submit the film for home release classification (so it could be that the DVD version is called The Avengers) but right now, today, the film with Captain America, Iron Man and Thanos/Darkseid/Thanoseid in the end credits is called Marvel Avengers Assemble in the UK.

For those that are asking, the name on the BBFC certificate shown at the beginning of all movies in the UK is Marvel Avengers Assemble and I believe this name is also used in the end credits. -- Iscariot (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't called anyone names, and [User:Plkrtn|Plkrtn]] isn't painting himself as logical if he's getting emotional. The posts above show a host of assumptions. None of us knows the title under which Disney or its UK distribution company submitted the film — these two gentlemen are guessing. Given the circumstances I've laid out, there are legitimate questions that are going unanswered by any confirmable, third-party sources. We only know the title the BBFC lists. We don't know that's what Disney called it, or whether the BFFC saw the same red Marvel box as on the US version — the very same one — and made a mistake. Until we have confirmation from a source quoting Disney, that is absolutely an open question. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as Tenebrae continues to remove the multiple valid sources given for the title being "Marvel Avengers Assemble", using rules incorrectly to threaten people for making the correct changes and generally displaying behaviour that is completely unbecoming of the rules of this site. I will now list the multiple sources here. Including a source from the Marvel UK website. BBFC website - where the official name as registered by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures UK is listed against the film itself, The Guardian article discussing the titling of the film, The Official UK site for the film, The Associated Press article on the European Premiere. My final piece of evidence is the BBFC Submission Form PDF which quite clearly requests the title or any other title the film may go under, as part of submission. The only grounds that the BBFC website could be incorrect is now the assumption that the person filing the submission, or entering it onto the database was incorrect, which would need a source, would it not? Who is guessing? The guy with mulitple evidenced sources, or the guy that thinks one Telegraph reference is enough by comparison? A reference that has been contradicted by a later article on the very same website I may add. --Plkrtn (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The official site doesn't say "Marvel Avengers Assemble."

Read the text. The italicized title is "Marvel's Avengers Assemble." Yet that's not what the BFFC calls it. So what's official? And who's doing the assuming?

As for the red box with MARVEL in it, that's irrelevant. That box appears on the US version. No one's calling the US version "Marvel The Avengers." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the title of the page, which clearly reads "Marvel Avengers Assemble | Watch Trailer | Offical UK Movie Site". It'd be nice, in the face of multiple sources that you'd just admit you're incorrect. --Plkrtn (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(More E/C) Addressing what's happening in the article first, Tenebrae: I have provided you with a recent source from The Telegraph, as well as multiple other sources correctly referencing the classified title. If recent sources aren't the concern (because after all, media outlets never change the title of something based on new information, do they?) I'll present you with half a dozen references from UK sources that call the film The Avengers from two years ago.

Now, on this page. I believe it is Tenebrae making assumptions about the BBFC (as it is called, and not the 'BFFC') getting something wrong. The idea that the BBFC is some idiot organisation like the Moral Majority that uses assumptions in its classifications is simply ignorant. If a mistake has been made in adding the studio to the classified title, it is the fault of the distribution company that had a member of staff complete the submission form. And as I've said before, common name and any mistake or typo on the certificate doesn't matter, until the BBFC issues a retraction or correction the film is only legally allowed to be shown in the United Kingdom under the title of Marvel Avengers Assemble. -- Iscariot (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please address the fact that the written text on the official UK site for the movie says "Marvel's Avengers Assemble."

The page's HTML title has no bearing on anything. Terms are placed there solely for search engine optimization (SEO), and people search for "Marvel" not "Marvel's". The written text is what's official. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you find that statement constitutes original research. WP:NOR. Why are you clutching at straws and being so emotionally attached to this incorrect title with the source provided being contradicted by a later source from the same publication? All of the evidence is in place to prove quite clearly that the title submitted by Walt Disney Studio Motion Pictures UK, to the British Board of Film Classification is 'Marvel Avengers Assemble'. There are several sources provided as well as a direct reference in the BBFC database to it. No conjecture, evidenced fact. Meanwhile you continue to remove these sources for an older out of date one because it suits your need for the title to be what you want it to be, rather than what is actually is. They can call the movie whatever they like once they've called it the official name. It's quite clearly called Marvel Avengers Assemble in the title of the site. --Plkrtn (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A further source. The UK press release for Colantotte, whose braclets are used by the Iron Man character towards the climax of the film. --Plkrtn (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

First, what the official site says on the site itself is not OR, it's black-and-white what Disney is saying. Second, I have an idea for a solution. I'll save this post, and I ask for a "hold on" while I write my proposal so that we don't E/C. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a proposal. It's based on the fact of conflicting evidence — and that includes what you remarkably call "an older out of date" citation, which, unless the newspaper runs a correction, is still absolutely valid; published facts don't "expire" or we wouldn't have historians.

Regardless: First, as it's a US movie, the lead only requires the US title. We generally put international titles in the "Distribution" / "Release" section. Second, we say in that section, "In the UK, the BBFC gives the title as Marvel Avengers Assemble." We leave it at that, with the BBFC cite. That way there's no arguing about the various titles as they appear in different newspapers, or about the fact the official site gives yet a different title.

Simple, absolutely factual, and I think it addresses everyone's concerns. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. If we take for a second that your "BBFC was all confused by the studio and misclassified it", [ Ireland makes the same mistake]. This is four separate companies, BBFC, Ireland's Classification Office, Disney UK and Disney Ireland all making the same mistake. The fact remains that this is the legal title of the film in at least two countries, and the US version isn't (to my knowledge) out yet, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that you could get a name change as we did when it was announced as The Avengers two years ago. -- Iscariot (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked to see the Disney Ireland official site, but the UK official site does not say "Marvel Avengers Assemble" except in its SEO code. It says, in black-and-white text on the site, "Marvel's Avengers Assemble." Could we address this, please.

And I've seen the film. The red box is there. I'll ask Tom Hiddleton tomorrow when I do a breakfast interview with him if he's heard of any US title changes by Disney. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to address it, it's not even remotely relevant, no more than a site (trusted source or not) calling it "The Thanos Movie" would merit a mention. In the UK the law is clear, a film must be classified by the BBFC in order to be shown. The BBFC classified this film (at the request of the distributor) as Marvel Avengers Assemble. Even if we consider that an error has been made in the submission form by a Disney employee, the Irish classification also stands testament to this as a title. I have seen the film on the UK print, and the more I think about it the more I'm sure Marvel Avengers Assemble appears at the start of the end credits although I'm open to correction on this point, and by law the film I've seen is Marvel Avengers Assemble. Common name doesn't matter, and is referenced for completeness in the article, the legal name has been established (by the British and Irish classification offices) and verified by the sourced material above.

Disney are entitled to say whatever they want, but legally the name is sourced and proven. Can we get a RFC on this to settle it please? -- Iscariot (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The official site is not relevant. What Disney itself calls the movie is not relevant. If that's what you're saying, then, yeah, I guess RfC is needed.

Re: "Disney are entitled to say whatever they want" — that includes naming the movie. The BBFC can't name a movie. It can call it whatever it wants, but only the owner of the movie can name it. If you own a dog, you name it — the license bureau doesn't name it. Yes, please call for an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm now repeating this point for the third time, Disney did name it. They had an employee fill out the BBFC submission form (which I linked to you above) and did the same thing for the Irish release. When filling out this form they stated that the title was Marvel Avengers Assemble. If you call your dog on its breed papers Princess Arabelle Lexington VIII, then that is its name. The fact you call it Bella around the house doesn't change the fact that the owner picked the name when it was licensed. The BBFC did not name the movie, they classified it. When the time came to enter the name on the certificate they put in the name provided on the submission form by Disney. Avengers Assemble is not a film that is currently on release in the United Kingdom. To go to the cinema tomorrow and see a film named Avengers Assemble would be illegal because no certificate has been granted to a movie with that name. How are you disputing these facts? -- Iscariot (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agreed with you that this needs an RfC, so I'm not sure why this additional post. Yes, of course, I believe we can safely assume that a Disney employee filled out the BBFC submission form. But you link to a blank form. There is no way of knowing what Disney wrote. Given what they wrote on their own website, it would have been "Marvel's Avengers Assemble." So you're saying that this hypothetical Disney employee was, to use the vernacular used somewhere above, "too much of an idiot" to tell the difference between the regular form and the possessive.

I agreed with you: Write up an RfC. If you'd like me to do it, that's fine, just ask. It was your idea so I thought you wanted to. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I just changed the title in the lede before coming across this storm in a teacup. Sorry. But it seems pretty clear to me that the legal title in the UK is Marvel Avengers Assemble as per the arguments above. Besides, a film's title is surely what appears in the credits - it's Se7en, not Seven, despite it being commonly referred to as the latter. Until an RfC is raised, it would appear that consensus is to retain this change for the moment. Barry Wom (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, this gets over a screen's worth of debate. But the notion linking an unnamed character in the film to their Wikipedia article because that's unquestionably who they are? Preposterous! - 86.140.141.44 (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Table of Achievements

I kind of have a problem with us just creating a big table that virtually mirrors Box Office Mojo. I think important box office achievement is good to note, but it seems like we're listing every single thing that happens.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

While I am for documenting its records as it is pretty much a one of a kind situation and is currently projected to wind up the 3rd highest grossing film ever, looking at that table now (which I haven't done in a few days), it is ridiculously long and should probably be replaced with prose. Like it might be worth saying that it had the biggest take per theater or whatever, but do we really care if Hannah Montana used to have that? No, it wasn't even a record I knew existed, I certainly didn't know or care Hannah Montana had it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we talked about this above, but other things like "Highest grossing superhero film for an opening weekend" is a given when it has the highest weekend of any film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that in the table, but yeah. I can understand why you might want to go for specificity if it was JUST that it was the highest opening weekend for a superhero film, but its the highest opening weekend for any film ever. Trumps superhero film a little bit. Also, all the records seem to be American-centric, the table is placing a lot of weight on one area which provides less than 40% of the total. Except the billion part, which actually makes the only prose in that section incorrect, since it specifies those records are all American. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I also have issue with it having a "Summer opening weekend". I understand that it's sourced to BOM, but last I checked Summer does not actually start until June 21....we're a month away. I mean, they list Spring as March and April....even though the last time I checked that season lasts 3 months and not 2. I think the days to reach the top gross are good, but I don't think we need to have Top 3-day gross, 4-day, 5-day, etc, etc. That's just excessive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Box Office Mojo separates the seasons in a different way than usual. For example, the calendar has no such season as holiday, but Box Office Mojo says that November and December is the holiday season. I think this is just a way the film industry separates seasons because I noticed that The Hollywood Reporter does a similar separation. Spinc5 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I get that they separate that way, but that's my point. It's probably not that appropriate to be displayed in a table because the average reader might look at the month of release and go, "This wasn't the summer time".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is also another issue about the record time to reach $1 billion. As noted by User:Rickie-d, Up or debate if this alters the record in the same way as the 2-days-to-$100mil one, but this is notable. Both prior rec-holders released in US/CA two days after global, Avengers did it a week after. Less domestic box. I did some research and found that the 19-day gross of Avatar was $1.025 billion,[2] the 19-day gross of HP7 - Part 2 was $1.008 billion[3] and $1.0004 billion for The Avengers.[4] So The Avengers wasn't the fastest to reach $1 billion in terms of gross (a record still held by Avatar). However, one can argue that the first two played for 17 days in North America in order to reach $1 billion while The Avengers played for only 10. On the other hand, by day 19, Avatar hadn't been released yet in Italy, it had played for only two days in China and had played for only 10 days in some countries (including Japan).[5] By day 19, HP7 - Part 2 hadn't been yet released in China, but had played for 17-19 days in every other country (except Indonesia) [6]. By day 19, The Avengers hadn't been released yet in Japan, and had played for only 9-10 days in many countries (inlcuding Russia and China). Actually, after comparing all these information (including these as well [7], [8], [9]), I think The Avengers was actually in the most disadvantageous position, since it has the most number of countries playing for only 9-10 days, while the other two films had most countries playing for 17-19 days. Of course we can't really say anything for sure, so I think sticking to what the secondary sources say, like Box Office Mojo and The Hollywood Reporter, i.e. "record time of 19 days to reach $1 billion, but tied with Avatar and HP7 - Part 2" is the best we can do. Spinc5 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be listed as a tie, only based on days and not actual figures for 1 billion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Title/URL change?

Okay… I have skimmed most of the talk page and have not come across this discussion, so I think it is safe to bring it up under its own heading:

I suggest renaming this page "Marvel's The Avengers" and having "The Avengers," "The Avengers (2012 film)," etc. reroute to it; reason being that most of the references in the External Links section, including the Official Website, and the release poster used as the main image, refer to it as such. This will also help differentiate this film from other properties, Marvel-related and otherwise, known as "The Avengers". Thoughts?Justin The Claw (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that was a great discussion. Glad that was all sorted... :/ Charlr6 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanos in Post-Credits Scene

Let's vote and overrule certain editors of this article. Should the master villain in the mid-credits be shown as Thanos or not in the sypnosis? Give your say and remember these rules :- Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and WP:NOTLAW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.45.41 (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd vote YES. This issue and the Cosmic Cube issue have reached ridiculous levels.

We have a number of people here who can clearly recognize that the figure in this video (<---SPOILER Alert!) is the same one seen here, here or here. Yet their knowledge comes to naught because a few editors aren't familiar with Thanos or the Cosmic Cube.

So the Tesseract was linked to an article for a mundane geometrical shape and Thanos, though clearly visible and recognizable by his shoulder armor and distinctive purple skin, wrinkled chin, and glowing eyes, is still referred to as "the master"? The dialogue even references Thanos' motivation for causing trouble in the Marvel Universe (his repeated attempts to court a female manifestation of Death) with the phrase, "To challenge them (the people of Earth) is to court death."

Definitely a candidate for an exception under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and WP:NOTLAW Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk)

The thing is, it is so blatantly obvious that it is Thanos, that WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR must kick in. That chin, the look of the character in general, and the line about courting death followed by the rye grin to camera make it perfectly clear. --Plkrtn (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"wry" grin, unless you think he's been drinking whiskey. :-D SLEPhoto (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My view is that "No Original Research" is unviolable. If there's dispute over who the character is, and there's no source, then it does not go in the article. However, I feel the issue of "reliable sources" could be bent slightly. There are loads of geek sites out there discussing the end credits.[10] and [11] are just the first two I found. I'm sure one semi-reliable one could be used as a reference. GDallimore (Talk) 10:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't dispute over who the character is, more so the dispute is that his name isn't mentioned at the end so it shouldn't be included. --Plkrtn (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This article fails to state that the film contains a small post-credits scene, in which Thanos makes a cameo appearance. please edited... source??.. watch the movie. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.178.166 (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

See the above discussions, but to summarize for you...the movie does not actually identify him as Thanos.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If there's a source identifying him, then of course that can be used even if the film fails to do so. I don't think there's any real argument there. The only argument is whether the sources are good/reliable enough. GDallimore (Talk) 13:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

First, consensus is not reached by simply voting (see WP:VOTE). Second, consensus cannot overrule a policy like verifiability and original research. As for reliable sources, fan sites and reviewers are not the authority when it comes to the name of a character. THe people that made the film are. So, some random site saying "Thanos is in the film" is not actually verifying anything, but passing personal opinion off as fact. This is especially true when all you see of Thanos is a darkened side of his face. Again, if you read verifiability, it isn't about what is true, but what you can verify. We need someone connected to the film to actually verify such things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you don't think the sources are good enough yet. That's fine. Neither do I which is why I haven't changed the article. But the point is he can be named if there's a good enough source and there can be no argument over that. GDallimore (Talk) 13:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If one of the people involved comes out and is like, "Yes, that was Thanos"...then yeah he can be named. I've seen the video, and though I can see where it can be assumed that it is him I don't believe that the video actually shows enough for some random fan or reviewer to be an authority on the subject to identify him for the purposes of meeting our guidelines and policies. Especially not since every IP so far has tried to say he has red skin when what I saw in the video on my screen was clearly not red skin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Bignole. In addition, once we start substituting our own personal knowledge for what's on the movie screen, we start down the slippery slope to opening up the Film Project, at the very least, to private OR. That's the bigger picture here, and it's one we need to acknowledge before any discussion goes further.

And to disagree slightly: We have not named Mjolnir at the end of the Iron Man 2 plot even though Thor has been released, because as far as the general audience who sees the film is concerned — not comics geeks like us — all they know is that a mysterious hammer has crashed into the desert. That's all they know. Anything else is outside extrapolation that the movie itself does not say. The same holds true with Thanos, or whatever they decide to call him. Let's remember that the character was not Bruce Banner in the 1970s TV series, no matter what the comics — and comics geeks like us — said. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The adherence to the minutia of wiki-law in this instance topples over the border into ridiculous. It is Thanos. There are no ifs, ands or buts about this. That is who he is. Yes, they do not say his name in the film. So what? It is still Thanos. The entire internet recognizes that this is Thanos. People who see the film in cinemas and wonder who the unnamed character is will come to Wikipedia in order to find out who he is. We are actively withholding accurate information from readers who are seeking it. Don't want to say "Thanos" in the article text? Fine! I can dig that! Just link "the alien master" to Thanos's article! Actually inform people, instead of making them stupider. To not include this information in the article serves no purpose, except to say that wiki-law is being upheld, to the detriment of the information-seeker. - 109.152.158.7 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not seeing the larger picture. We can't just add in OR whenever we think we're right, because everybody who wants to add original research thinks they're right. Many times they might very well be — but perhaps an equal number of times they will not be. If we start to arbitrarily decide when OR is allowed and when it's not, that's a slippery slope that cuts to the core of Wikipedia.

Additionally, until we hear from the filmmakers themselves in order to quote them in something like the sequels section, we in fact do not know his name — any more than fans who "knew" the movies included the Cosmic Cube — which not only isn't called that, but certainly doesn't do what the Cosmic Cube does in the comics. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And I maintain that you're adhering to the minutia of Wikipedia rules to the detriment of the article in a case where ignoring all rules will inform and educate article readers, to no tangible benefit. - 109.152.158.7 (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, then here is the reality for you. There are two possibilities about who the "average viewer" is. Either, the average viewer is either going to know about the comics or not going to know about the comics. The ones that know about the comics are already going to know who Thanos is, and thus will not be coming to Wikipedia to find out "who that guy was in the post credits". The ones that don't know about the comics, and are just there for a good film, probably won't stay for the credits and if they do probably won't care about who that guy was. So, either way there is no real reason to ignore the policy on original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone's to blame is the MCU. For always giving clues that a comic book fanboy (like ourselves) to undestand as a general audience...but making the average movie watcher be like "who is that?" with nothing to back up that to prove that that's who is who he is. To those who want the rules to be broken...have you ever thought about taking it to the Wikipedia:No original research page. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreeing with the No Original Research rule, I added the reference mentioned above by Anthony. I was one of those coming to Wikipedia to read who that figure was after seeing the movie, and I would have preferred to have found the information here, but I sincerely understand the NOR rule, and I hope this satisfies both sides. --denny vrandečić (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this can go in a different section if it's a direct Feige quote, but not in the plot section, which contains only the manifest content of the film. What are other editors' thoughts? Also, we need to find the original source page for that Empire audio. Comicbookmovie.com is a user-generated site and disallowed under WP:SPS. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You removed the referenced statement with the argument that the name of the character is not mentioned, but it is said pretty much in the first few sentences of the podcast. Are you sure you have listened to it? Furthermore, Empire is a reputable source. And although ComicBookMovie contains also user-generated content, this *is* the official channel of the Empire magazine, as can be seen here: [12] so it is not disallowed per SPS. Otherwise any page that contains user generated content (from Twitter to YouTube to The Atlantic) would be disallowed. Regarding the placing, this is the same place as is used in Iron Man, where Nick Fury is mentioned. --denny vrandečić (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's legit, it will appear somewhere other than an SPS page. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I found it also directly linked from Empire here. [13]. I will reinstate the edit thus, pointing to Empire directly. --denny vrandečić (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

My bad, the linked to podcast is an error. I meant this one: [14] --denny vrandečić (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Tenebrae, you point me to the talk page and tell me not to edit war. I actually am on this talk page, and I update and change the edits accordingly to our discussion. You simply keep deleting it. Would you please explain why I am the one making an edit war? --denny vrandečić (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to give other editors some time. We're not all watching the page like a hawk every minute. I also asked for other editors to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go listen to the podcast now. A timestamp would have been helpful so that I wouldn't have to spend time listening to the whole thing. And regardless, any information from it does not go into the plot section, which contains only the manifest content of the film itself. Anything else goes in a different section. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I've found. Feige is very cagey and never actually says himself that it's Thanos, but regardless: At 2:09, he says, "All you need is one person in the back of the theater to go, 'Oh, it's Thanos!' for people to start going, 'Who's…? Oh, that must mean something, who's that?' and they start to learn and they start to dig deeper." http://www.empireonline.com/News/story.asp?nid=33806 "Kevin Feige Avengers Spoiler Podcast: Marvel head on the credit sting and more" 30 April 2012 Empire.

It can't go in the plot, for reasons stated above, so where would it go? Production, perhaps? Let's go to other Marvel Cinematic Universe articles and see how it's handled there, if at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Iron Man 2 makes mention of the post-credit scene's production under Filming, while Thor makes mention of it under Post-Production. I'll look at a couple more movies. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Iron Man has it under Development. *Sigh* I can see we're going to have to have WikiProject Comics members jump in so we can devise a single logical place to discuss the post-credits scene consistently across all these MCU articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And The Incredible Hulk doesn't have a post-credits scene, so there's no mention, and Captain America: The First Avenger doesn't discuss the post-credits scene outside the plot. OK, fellow editors, where oould background discussion of the post-credits scene go? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I was thinking. It doesn't belong on the plot but somewhere else. But I don't mind a link to the Thanos article on the plot section as long as we are in full agreement that's what Fiege said he was. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to understand it:

• Well-meaning edits that add information with sources referencing this information are removed because you did not have the time to check the sources yet?
• You state in the edit comments that I am not participating in the discussion but that instead I am simply reverting. I have outlined my full reasoning here as I was making my edits, I have updated every single of my edits according to your comments, whereas you have simply reverted me repeatedly and participated in the discussion here afterwards?
• Also, the 3RR rule that you mention only applies when undoing another editor's work. As you can see from the history, I did not do any reverts on this page. Are you trying to scare me with the threat of a block from further participating in the project?
• You do not give a reference to your claim that a plot section should contain only "the manifest content of the film itself". In contrary, WP:FILMPLOT does contain the statement that "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section.". Could you please state where your quotation is from, as it is so neatly put in quotation marks? Also I have given the example of Iron Man, where the post-credit scene is described in the very same place.
• You state that Iron Man has the post-credit scene under Development, but you do not mention that it is also the last sentence in Plot?
• For Iron Man 2, you also do not mention that the post-credit scene is in plot, exactly in the same position where I have put it?
• You state that you have listened to the podcast. I told you that the relevant moment is in the first few sentences. And it is actually the *very* first sentence of the podcast itself (i.e. after the introduction to the podcast), between 0:45 and 0:50, where Kevin Feige not only says Thanos, but even explicated "the Mad Titan". I am sorry you overheard that.

Please forgive me, but due to all of these I will add the statement back to the article, in the plot section, as per precedence and in alignment with FILMPLOT, and as agreed by Jhenderson777, and hopefully you will allow it to stay there so that viewers like me, who come to Wikipedia to gather information, find well-sourced information on a topic they are currently interested in as the movie just rolls through the cinemas. --denny vrandečić (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit though that the plot of The Avengers is arguably not dramatically "Complicated", but one might argue that due to it being part of the indeed complicated Marvel Universe, the term might still be appropriate for this case. --denny vrandečić (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, in case the plot section is, unlike in the other referenced movies, not regarded as the right section, I would suggest to kindly move it to a section that is a better fit instead of simply removing the information from the article altogether. Wikipedia articles grow by improving them, not by deleting everything that is considered not perfect. As per WP:PRESERVE. --denny vrandečić (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Despite a clear consensus by at least four other editors — myself, Bignole, TriiipleThreat and JHenderson — you violate WP:PLOT and go against the consensus established by WikiProject Comics across several previous movies. You are showing yourself unwilling to join in a collaborative discussion and constructive solution, but rather to state that you're going to do whatever you want to do despite the legitimate and well-placed concerns of other editors.

In this particular case, the movie itself does not say who the character is. Adding something to the plot that is not in the movie itself is violative. Refusing to collaborate and edit-warring instead is also violative. We'll let an admin make the call. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And to address your points: You say yourself the plot is not unduly complicated. And WP:FILMPLOT clearly says the source is the plot is the solely film itself.

You completely misunderstand the point about the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe articles. The Iron Man post-credits scene contains nothing that's not in the film itself, so it's irrelevant here. The Iron Man 2 post-credits scene in the plot section likewise says nothing that's not in the film, but discussion of what the mysterious object is is in a different, non-plot section of the article.

We are on no WP:DEADLINE. And putting up clearly contentious edits before other editors have sufficient time to comment goes completely against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.

And your series of reversions in face of all this shows an edit-warring mentality. At least three editors have removed this OR fancruft from the article, and at least four argue against it here. Your complete disregard of all that shows no respect for your fellow editors and no respect for the process. Whatever your tortured rationales, you are simply adding your personal fannish like into the movie's plot section even though the movie itself, with the filmmakers' deliberate and conscious effort, says nothing of the sort. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I prefer you would refrain from personal attacks, like calling my rationales tortured or me respectless. You further do not address my points as you claim in the first sentence of your answer. FILMPLOT does not say the source of the plot is solely the film, as demonstrated in my quote. I may "completely misunderstand the point about the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe article", but if I do so, I do not so deliberately. As I already conceded, the plot of the Avengers is not complicated, but the Marvel Universe sure is. I do not see consensus by the named editors to remove a sourced statement, this was actually not discussed before. I do see a consensus on this page to keep unsourced statements out of the article, which I agree with. Due to the citation I consider this a new situation. Especially JHenderson777's comment above does not look like he still agrees with keeping the debated statement out, as it explicitly says "But I don't mind a link to the Thanos article on the plot section as long as we are in full agreement that's what Fiege said he was".

I want to understand:

• do you disagree that the debated statement is in the given source?
• do you disagree that such a sourced statement should be in the article at all?
• do you, as of now, merely disagree on the placing of the statement?

If it is merely the latter, I would like to ask you to please point to the section where the information would be a better fit. --denny vrandečić (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to do just that, showing that this sort of post-credits-scene background information in earlier MCU articles appears in three different sections — Film, Development and Post-Production — and calling for editors to work on a consistent place for this type of information. I believe if you had read my post carefully, you would have seen that I had gone to the trouble to find a quote and a timestamp that supported your content and urged editors to collaborate on where to place it. So I have no idea why you are asking questions I've already answered, and answered in a way that includes, respects and addresses your concerns. Which is more than you've done with any other editor here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Tenebrae, something CANNOT be OR if it is reliably sourced. GDallimore (Talk) 13:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's OR synthesis. Read the policy. The movie does not say this, so we're getting information from elsewhere and drawing a synthesized conclusion. That's not allowed. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of my latest edit. Making it a footnote. I think it should please both sides. It's a both win-win for all of you. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this exemplifies the highest standards of collaboration and compromise that Wikipedia is built on. It addresses the concerns of anyone not taking an absolutist stand, and upholds the core policy of WP:NOR.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that your comment immediately prior demonstrates that you don't understand NOR. If it is reliably sourced that a un-named character in the film is Thanos, then it is reliably sourced that he is Thanos. There is no synthesis required. GDallimore (Talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We're saying something that the movie doesn't say, using outside information to prove a point. That's OR synthesis. In any event, Jhenderson777 has produced a compromise that addresses everyone's concerns. That's the Wikipedia way — compromise and collaboration, not constant fighting for one absolutist position or another. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's the guidelines verifiability not truth that's important. If the info is reliably sourced, it can go in the article, assuming it's relevant, which it is. The only question is whether a reliable source can be found. It need not be the film-makers themselves. But something at least at the level of, say, Total Film or SFX would be good. GDallimore (Talk) 13:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record so that everything is accurate: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay, not a guideline. Anyone can write an essay; they're nice "extra reading" to have as Wikipedias but they don't have any effect. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is arguing the Feige information/quote doesn't belong in the article. No one. We're all in agreement. The question is whether it belongs in the plot section, and since the movie does not give that information, it does not. In any event, Jhenderson777's compromise solution, a footnote, would appear to address everyone's concerns, and we can move on. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we use common sense here? People are not stupid. The hammer in IM2 was Thor's hammer, the "master" is Thanos, as confirmed by the producer. Anyhow, including it would make more sense since obviously people would come to the article and see if it was. Quit making this so difficult. Kelzorro (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know why you think Kevin Fiege the producer of the film, is a verifiable source for the movie's name being "Avengers Assemble" but when he actually talks about Thanos appearing at the end in a podcast, he is suddenly not a suitable reference. Your continual attempts to move the goal posts so the article is presented in a way you'd like, rather than factually, is curious to me. --Plkrtn (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't say the UK title is Avengers Assemble. It says the British and Irish censorship offices classify it as Marvel Avengers Assemble, that the official UK site calls it Marvel's Avengers Assemble and that trade reports call it Avengers Assemble. You're accusing people who disagree with you of bad faith when in fact they've worked diligently to get all the facts out neutrally. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

But you haven't, you spent several days deleting verifiable legally binding sources in order to keep one source from a newspaper. There has been nothing neutral about your edits when you're trying to cover facts that you don't like or appreciate. --Plkrtn (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it's not just me but several editors, including Bignole, JHenderson and TriiipleThreat weighing in, and now also RichieKim. Secondly, the ones of us giving all the names, including the official one on Disney/Marvel's UK site, are the ones being netural — YOU are the one pushing for an agenda of one thing only and the rest of us be damned despite all the evidence against that one thing only. And there's nothing legally binding, clearly, if the official site is still calling it something different and the copyright calls it something different. International copyright trumps national censorship office. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Common sense is to adhere to WP:NOR and WP:FILMPLOT for overall policy reasons. In any case, I'm not sure what's difficult anymore: Editors came up with a sensible compromise that addresses both sides' concerns. That's the way it's supposed to be. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Man, you and your way with words. You're changing the mean of reclassified to suit your idea that it hasn't been retitled, and you're changing the use of "both sides' concerns" to mean a solution that suits you. --Plkrtn (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence against it. You are asking to use a common name, of which there are several. I am, along with others, asking to use the legally binding name under UK Law. You cannot copyright a title, you Trademark it. I suggest you learn the difference. --Plkrtn (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As I say elsewhere on this page today, multiple editors including Bignole, JHenderson and TriiipleThreat are in agreement with me. I happen to be the one speaking most since I have seen the film and they haven't yet and don't want to risk seeing spoilers. And despite that risk, they've still been coming here to express their concerns for WP:NOR. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to complain that Thanos isn't used here...because he is used on here. It doesn't matter what section he is on..what matters is that we put this article stating that the producer said that's who he is on the article. Why is it so important that he is on the plot section over a note section? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not synthesis. Synthesis is a wikipedia editor taking the film and taking the comics and comparing them and deciding who the character in the film is. It is not synthesis when a reliable source makes such a comparison and comes to that conclusion. It's the same argument that an article must be NPOV, not the individual sources used to create it. GDallimore (Talk) 18:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We can respectfully agree to disagree; no harm done. In any event, as noted, a compromise was reached that addresses everyone's concerns. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It does matter, when people read the plot, they're going to look for that line. It's Thanos, it's confirmed by several official sources. It should be left alone as stated by Wikipedia's rules, the ones someone apparently don't want to follow because of his own silly reason about policy.Kelzorro (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The tesseract is apparently confirmed to be the cosmic cube by several sources, it still isn't called the cosmic cube in the film. Thanos could be called Coo-Coo-Machoo for all we know until he is actually named on film and to call him anything in this plot is original research. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Don't insult my intelligence. He is Thanos, confirmed by numerous sources. End of story.Kelzorro (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Obviously Thanos". I read the section above that addressed this neatly, and no less than four editors with about 100k of edits between them point out the obvious. And still, someone seeks to add uncited, speculative Sherlocking in? I think not. Convince me I am seeing this wrong. Show me references from reliable, notable sources that unequivocally, explicitly say they are referring to Thanos. No rush - we aren't in a hurry. As an encyclopedia, we are absolutely not in a hurry.
And one of the main reasons that citations aren't required in Plot summaries is that they are collaborative efforts of a common perception. In the absence of references, if one person sees Thanos and no one else does, then it can't be added to the summary. If everyone (read: every casual reader) gets it and one person doesn't, it goes in. No amount of instruction creep can change that.
This isn't controversial; it shouldn't go in until we have an appropriate citation (that can be referenced in another section of the article). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a citation in the article already. It's in the footnote attached to the part that discusses "the master".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at the link - it says nothing about Thanos. If you look at the wording, the speaker is not claiming that the post-credits individual is Thanos; they are saying, instead that someone - explicitly, just "one person" - in the audience will assume it is Thanos. That doesn't sound like anything approaching a positive identifaction. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the quote at the bottom of the page, or actually go to the podcast? In the podcast, Kevin Feige confirms that is Thanos. After that he's commenting on the phenomenom that surrounds these types of scenes where you always have at least 1 person in the audience who can identify the reference, character, easter egg, etc. He explicitly talks about people not knowing who Thanos is, what Thor's hammer is called, or even who Nick Fury is. Why someone chose to use that in the footnote is beyond me, but at that start of the podcast its specifically stated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's not proof enough, Feige outright states that it's Thanos at a later point in the same interview. When asked about "the Other", Feige replies, "He was the person that Loki was dealing with, and was sort of a frontman for Thanos." —Flax5 18:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[15] this citation, already in the Thanos article, should be enough to bring on the death of this thread. all hail death...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, im done here. if other editors think its wrong for the actual character to be linked in the article, rather than merely mentioned in a footnote that most wont read, then i wont bother trying to change that. I guess its a debate over undue weight. IF so, why is Schwarma mentioned three times in the article? maybe thats the actual villain in the sequel, they all come down with food poisoning and sue the city's health inspectors? buh bye.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Shawarmanated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Flax5 - that citation was precisely what I was looking for. Much better than a podcast without timestamp. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It was confirmed that it is Thanos though, like Kelzorro said. So it's not Original Research when its been confirmed who the character actually is. It's completely irrelevant if the character is named on screen or not, it was confirmed who the character is. And like Kelzorro said, end of story. Charlr6 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to insult your intelligence because you didn't just read what I wrote. Just hit reply and let your fingers do the thinking.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should write something that makes sense next time, then I'll give you a real response. Pulling crap from your rear end won't cut it.Kelzorro (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to insult anyone. I just want to see some ironclad references that unequivocally, explicitly state such. Without them, there is no way it can be in the article. this is not a detective journal or a fan forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but we're not saying this is a fan forum or a detective journal. People come here for info, and Thanos being in the movie is info. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand with some.Kelzorro (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Readers come here for accurate info, which means that just about everything in the article has to be cited to an outside source. It must be an external source making assumptions, identifications and so forth; it cannot be an editor doing so. The reason for this is simple: we are not notable sources of information or opinion, whereas those whom we cite are. Since we now have a solid source where a reviewer explicitly named Thanos as being the person in question, we are free to proceed and identify him. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I vote YES. These long discussions about the cosmic cube and Thanos are ridiculous. It has been confirmed that it is Thanos at the end. It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand unless they are deliberately 'trolling'.

Comment. On the Dark Knight article, the plot says that Two-Face Harvey Dent actually dies, along with a source. --Boycool † (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the plot only refers to him as Dent, so I'm not sure what my colleague Boycool † means in good faith to say.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he means the fact that Dent actually died.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My bad. I wasn't meaning to emphasize the character himself. --Boycool † (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is that Dent's apparent death in The Dark Knight could be debated similarly to the appearance of Thanos in this film, but it is instead confirmed within the plot with a citation. --Boycool † (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the current footnote method, the best of both worlds. The plot accurately reflects what happens on film while acknowledging easter eggs with supplemental information from outside sources that the general audience does not access to.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with TriiipleThreat. The movie's content does not identify him, and it would be pure misrepresentation to include Thanos' name as part of the plot. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While I don't want to join the discussion regarding Thanos, I did notice that the reference in the last section had a reference that didn't discuss the post credit's sequence or the plot at all (it was box office mojo). I added two new ref's, one for each scene, one of which identifies the the Master as Thanos. Since it's not an official studio release, I left the figure as Master. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, no, nothing wrong with your citations. It's just that you removed the original footnote saying the referenced source didn't say Thanos, whereas the source is quote from Kevin Feige referring to Thanos.

We footnote the shwarma scene in the production or post-production section, so no need to footnote it separately here. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had that issue in the past, my bad, how do I check footnotes for existing references before simply adding a new one? I usually look them over, but for long articles with lots of footnotes there's lots of room for error. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I'm a little confused here... are you aware that the existing ref leads to BOM's summary page? There are no interviews or any coverage of the plot there as far as i know...--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, my error, confused ref's with FN's!--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What if the reference to Thanos in the description just said something like "his master, widely believed to be Thanos," or "his master, whose presence and physical appearance is indicative of Thanos..." Would that be considered acceptable by Wikipedia standards? 66.142.232.16 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is kind confirmed by Whedon here Charlr6 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is perverse. The character is Thanos, period. If the rendition of him were in some way different from the source material, and if there weren't secondary sources for it, then this might be worthy of dispute. But neither is the case. It looks like him, has purple skin, a ridged chin, the flared shoulder epaulets--we're obviously supposed to understand that it's him. This is the whole reason why the sequence is put there in the first place: It's not even for the general audience, it's specifically for the comics geeks who Whedon knew would recognize him as such. To not explain this in the synopsis is silly.

An additional citation is not needed to merely describe the contents of a narrative work; to do so, the work itself functions as its own primary source, per WP:PSTS. Secondary citations are only needed for material that is evaluative, analytical or interpretive, and only when adding such material without a secondary source is it synthesis. That the character is Thanos is not interpretitve or evaluative, since we're supposed to understand who it is in the same way we'd recognize anyone else fictional or non-fictional: By what they look like. If it looks exactly like Thanos, then in what way is it "synthesis" to say that it's him? It isn't. To argue that it's synthesis because the movie does not explicit label him with a title card shaped like an arrow pointing at him with his name on it is ridiculous. Nightscream (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to address the most basic of your argument, we cannot identify a character soly because we "know" what they look like. The average reader will not know who Thanos is, and seeing him on screen will not cause them to break out in a eureka moment and go, "Hey, that's a character named Thanos." As a matter of fact, Kevin Feige even states that only hardcore fans really know who this character is at first glance, just like only hardcore fans get the inside jokes that some of the films drop (e.g., Cap's shield in Iron Man 2). So, it is in fact interpretive to say that we know because we know what he looks like. Given that you barely see the side of his face, it would be a stretch to assume that anyone other than hardcore fans knew who he was. So, that is why is requires a source and that is why we do not name him in the plot section itself (because the film does not name him). That simply goes with the philosophy that we don't call Hawkeye and Black Widow those names because they don't actually go by them in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, there'd actually be a stronger case for Hawkeye and Black Widow, as we see both of their SHIELD personnel files on a computer monitor in the early part of the film, with each one's real name *and* codename clearly legible... rdfox 76 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet, I restored that info with a reliable, secondary source in which Whedon confirms it was Thanos, and it was still reverted by Darkwarriorblake, who stated in his edit summary, "If you read the footnote, which noone seems to do, you will see that secondary source confirming it is not at issue. Also all refs are in the foot, not in the body.)" I did read the footnote, and it says nothing about the secondary source, nor about the issue being a "non-issue", as individual editors and footnotes do not have the authority to declare by fiat what is a "non-issue". How can it be a non-issue if they not only confirm it's Thanos, but explain at length why they included him in that sequence, as well as the Infinity Gauntlet in the trophy room in Thor? Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it comes down to the plot being a reflection of what actually appears in the film, and not of outside sources identifying new information. The film does not identify him, so the plot does not identify him. But, since we know who he is we put in a footnote that explains who he is so that someone reading will understand that in the film he is not identified, but has since been confirmed to be Thanos. This is equivalent to the issue we had at The Dark Knight, where people wanted to call Harvey Dent "Two-Face", when in fact he is never called that in the film (there is a passing mention of the nickname, but he isn't called that by anyone). We have to reflect the information as it is presented, if we went back and changed things based on later events then we'd be changing a lot of film articles simply because other films have retconned events or outside sources had to clarify a scene that they themselves were being intentionally vague about in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)