Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about The Avengers (2012 film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Based On

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The on screen credits list not only Stan Lee and Jack Kirby as the creators of The Avengers, but also Joe Simon and Jack Kirby for creating the character of Captain America. Here's a screenshot. So I'm wondering if this should be added to "Based on" section in the infobox? --DocNox (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. If that's what onscreen, then that's what's official. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During the whole residence on SHIELD ship Tony Stark is wearing a 2012 Black Sabbath reunion T-shirt, maybe this is a reference to the Iron Man? If a mod finds this information valuable, please include it somewhere, in Trivia section, or marketing, or something. 83.26.30.105 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Request withdrawn. 猿丸太夫 10:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Avengers (2012 film) → The Avengers (film) – This article is clearly the primary topic, having grossed about 30 times as much at the box office as the 1998 film (and more than any other film in history that wasn't directed by James Cameron, in fact). 猿丸太夫 12:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NCF, the primary topic would be The Avengers, which is a disambiguation page and because there is another film of the same name it is disambiguated here. (ex. Titanic (1943 film) and Titanic (1997 film)).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that convention when I started this RM. It seems like a ridiculously unintuitive guideline, and appears to have been unilaterally penned by a single user and accidentally survived 11 years of change. Was the convention ever actually supported by consensus? I see one place where an RM in favour of the guideline passed 9-2, with 6 of the supports only supporting because NCF currently says what it does, but nowhere where the merits of NCF were actually discussed and a clear consensus was established... 猿丸太夫 14:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The Marvel film is the primary topic for both The Avengers (film) and The Avengers (2012 film), so the rationale for moving it on that basis alone is flawed. Also, The Avengers (film) fails WP:PRECISE since it can also refer to The Avengers (1998 film), WP:PDAB and WP:NCF which states "Do not use partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) when more than one film needs to be disambiguated." Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose because "The Avengers" is the term that we look at for the primary topic. The Avengers is a disambiguation page, so this means there is no primary topic among all the topics titled "The Avengers". If we have two film articles with the same title, we need to disambiguate them from each other. Thus, the current setup is appropriate. We do not engage in hierarchical manipulation beyond assessing whether or not one of the topics titled "The Avengers" (not including disambiguation terms) is primary. If there is not one, then all topics should be appropriately disambiguated from one another. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. In addition to the WP:NCF, WP:PRECISE and WP:PDAB reasons mentioned by others, a film "having grossed about 30 times as much at the box office" seem like a non-compelling, WP:RECENTISM argument when you factor in recent news; and comparing the social/internet media, world population and inflation off 2012 as oppose to what it was in 1998. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose WP:NCF, WP:PDAB. This is not the only film called "The Avengers", nor is it even the only major studio film called "The Avengers". It isn't even the only film with major stars called "The Avengers". -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per the previously stated reasons. -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Snow oppose, early close - no such thing as "WP:primary film" In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn per WP:SNOW. I still think the overwhelmingly more notable film should be at The Avengers (film) (per 129.173.240.6's reader comment), and I don't agree with Zzyzx11 and 76.65.128.222 that the 1998 film is of anything like this film's majority. (Zzyzx11: Even if the 1998 film dated from 1939, it would still only have gross around 1/3 that of the Marvel film after adjusting for inflation. Check List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation. Additionally, the 2012 film made its budget back 7 times, but the 1998 film was a flop.) Anyway, no need to hurt myself further by letting this RM run longer.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link to Age of Ultron comic miniseries

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I added a reference to how media commentators are already linking the current subtitle of Avengers 2 to the recently-concluded comic book story-line of the same title. I was shortly reverted. Making the link without a reliable source explicitly doing so would be problematic, but in this case we have multiple noteworthy, reliable sources making the link, and it's hardly a stretch to begin with to say that one Age of Ultron might be associated with the other Age of Ultron produced by the same company a matter of weeks before the title was announced. In fact, that article explicitly makes the connection already. To compare, the Iron Man 3 article claimed the film would be based on Extremis with no source, a full year before the film was released, and "Extremis" not even appearing in the title.

Anyway, normally I would agree with the ball argument, but in this case a statement that "the sequel will be sub-titled Age of Ultron" is useless to readers without a link to the article we already have on the topic. How about we say something like "Joss Whedon announced at San Diego Comic-Con International that the first sequel will be titled Avengers: Age of Ultron[259] (see also Age of Ultron)"?

猿丸太夫 15:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if says it shares a name with the comic book series, but I would strongly oppose any suggestion that it is based on the series without explicit verfication.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my concern too, which is why the way I wrote it was a little over-worded -- I wanted to emphasize that it's JUST speculation by third parties based on the title. 猿丸太夫 15:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no reports at all that it is based on that story, just titled the same, and so linking anyone there is at the least incredibly misleading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Nope. Check the source I already cited. If you want to add "No one attached to the production has either confirmed or denied that the film will be an adaptation" you can, but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a single report on the title that didn't mention that summer 2013 saw a miniseries of the same title published. Are all of those reports "at the least incredibly misleading"? 猿丸太夫 16:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see both sides of this, but I do believe, at the time, it would be improper to bring in the comic series, here on this page. Even on the miniseries page too, linking back to the film. WP:NORUSH. The info will come, to accurately state it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

But don't you think it is rather pointless? Every single reliable source reporting on this has specifically drawn the connection, and all I am saying is that we should include a wikilink to the comic series article because otherwise the information is useless to anyone other than comic fans (which I am not -- I just read the various news sources on this topic). 猿丸太夫 16:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So what you are saying is "every source googled "Age of Ultron" the second it came up on screen, clicked the first link which took them to Wikipedia, copy and pasted the synopsis and then said confirmed they had no idea how it related. So let's send readers over there, to read something unrelated with a similar title. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If the only connection at the moment is the title and subtitle, there is no need to wikilink to the comic. This article is being incubated (see the top of the talk page), so maybe, MAYBE something could link there. But for this page, I don't see it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is confirmation, from Whedon, that the only thing similar is the name; no content, storylines or anything else. Source. (About the source: it is a personal transcription of a live interview Whedon had with Marvel, that has not been published yet in its original form.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine them. Honestly as a fan (not as a Wikipedian) I'm relieved then. But your source does confirm that the film will introduce the character Ultron, who also has a Wikipedia article we could link to, and is a reliable source source that confirms that the film will not have any connection to the comic of the same name. I'm not particularly rushed, but should we mention any of that? 猿丸太夫 10:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the page, The Avengers: Age of Ultron, now, it has been added, but with the context around it. So it is linked in there but not just as a "it shares the same name" type situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Title in lead sentence.

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I know this was discussed last year, but I wasn't here and I don't like the first sentence, so let's just discuss this once more... Basically, the title in the lead should be the same as the article title, which is The Avengers. Official or not, "Marvel's" is barely used, and a mention in brackets (like this) should easily be adequate. It's cleaner and tells you all you need to know. Technicalities belong in brackets... and the word "classified" is definitely not needed. Film Fan 11:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've shown Film Fan here as many instances as I could (here, here, here, here, here and here, all from The Avengers talk page archives. And then here, here, and for good measure, here, from the WikiProject Film talk page archives.) I don't think we have to revisit this again because: with Marvel's is the WP:OFFICIALNAME, not a technicality, which should be mentioned first, and then without Marvel's is by far the WP:COMMONNAME, as noted by the article title and the "or simply The Avengers". As for the stuff about the UK and Ireland, I am not opposed to it, and it took MONTHS to reach consensus on it, so I'm not in any desire to change it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You refer to WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME, neither of which support your argument. The official name should be mentioned in the first sentence yes, but not first. Common name comes first. Likewise, the common UK name is Avengers Assemble and even if someone insists the silly "Marvel's" bit be mentioned, Avengers Assemble comes first, and frankly I think there's no reason to include the official UK title in the lead when no one uses it. Film Fan 14:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, and unless there's a consensus to change it, Wikipedia protocol is that the status quo remain. WP:COMMONNAME indeed directs the article title be the common name, The Avengers, similar to the article Dr. Strangelove, which then likewise gives the seldom-used official name to open the lead. And given that this is English-language Wikipedia and not the U.S. Wikipedia, WP:WORLDVIEW would suggest that the name used in other English-speaking countries should follow that of the country of origin's. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with everything Tenebrae said. Dr. Strangelove is a perfect example to compare to in this situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Dr Strangelove certainly is not the same as that's not a case of branding. Film Fan 21:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So are a score of movie title's such as POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, Disney's The Kid and things by Stephen King and Jackie Collins. So is the Staples Center and Sports Authority Field at Mile High. So what?

This isn't getting traction, the article has been stable for some time, and a hard-fought compromise consensus was reached. Continue posting f you want but without a huge groundswell of support from other editors, the status quo can't change. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Critical acclaim

Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

Hi! Im the guy who keeps reverting your edits and says that The Avengers was critically acclaimed. I do this because on Wikipedia, most films that get over a 90% on Roten Tomatoes are said to be citically acclaimed. Please Discuss, 71.191.233.2 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is pretty obvious that the film received critical acclaim. If we do not want to reference the film review aggregators to make this claim, we should at least be able to find commentary elsewhere to support this claim. Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." We can look for something from Variety and Los Angeles Times. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Whats the point? We have the aggregate scores, readers can determine for themselves what that means. 92% is obviously very high, but theres no need to label it, especially based on our own research. Also citing a bunch of labels from reliable sources is equally meaningless as it would tell us the what we already know; a whole lot of critics liked it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If we are not permitted to draw prose-based conclusions from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, then we need to remove the relevant sentence from the lead section. The point is to provide context for readers. If we cannot use RT or MC to say that critics liked it overall, we can use other sources and quote them directly to provide that prose. Sometimes we only have RT and MC to cite for the consensus, but this is a popular enough film that we have commentary we can cite to avoid original research, however obvious it may be. The reporting of RT and MC scores is supposed to complement the commentary. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say the RT and MC scores in themselves provide the necessary context and compliments the lengthy commentary from reviewers that follow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But the logic about using RT and MC is that you can't say that there was critical acclaim to the film. So it cannot provide that particular context. One has to read about scores and such to draw a conclusion instead of seeing a reliably sourced conclusion upfront. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It could be as simple as moving the Metacritic passage upfront, "The Avengers received "generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic." Then mention the score and maybe even the breakdown of reviews. Is that something to be disputed? The IP editor was trying to provide a summary sentence in front of all the numbers. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that we don't need to say it. It doesn't take much for readers to draw such conclusions from the scores. Frankly I would like to see the project move away from such interpretive statements as they are a frequent cause of instability, with editors fighting over if reviews were "mixed", "mixed to positive", "generally favorable", etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also we could say it received "generally favorable reviews" according to Metacritic but I'm sure that it would not satisfy the IP and like minded editors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire crux of the argument is based solely on Rotten Tomatoes and we've had the discussion about how RT is not the solitary diviner of critical assessment many times. The IP should be blocked for edit warring and disruption, simple as. The film hasn't evne won any significant awards for anything but technical and that appears from a cursory glance to be a single BAFTA. Critical Acclaim is a joke, but basing it entirely off RT is hysterical. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Blake, do you think you're equating "critical acclaim" to "universal acclaim"? I think the IP editor wanted to have a summary sentence, and the wording can be adjusted. Right now, though, the lead section says, "The film received positive reviews from most film critics." Is this original research or not? If not, can this sentence not be used to introduce the "Critical reception" section? TriiipleThreat, we should be able to attribute interpretative statements per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The ease of doing this will depend on the film. The East (film)#Critical response is an example of one such opening. If we can tell readers in prose how a film was received, we should be able to do so. I don't think having solely the mechanical reports of film aggregators is good content or good writing. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the IPs edits added "Universal acclaim" instead of "critical acclaim". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And another example would be The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#Critical response, but I don't necessarily think that this approach is better. As "mechanical" as it might seem, it is in a lot of ways simpler and easier for readers to take in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The entie crux of this argument is not JUST based on RT, its also based on Metacritic and CinemaScore. It got an A+ on Cinema Score. Yes, I did add 'Universal Acclaim' ONCE,but I quickly changed it as I realized 'critically acclaimed' was a better fit. Thanks for suggesting that I should be blocked just because I wanted to make a helpful addition to a page, by the way. 71.191.233.2 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TriiipleThreat, Darkwarriorblake and others who advocate keeping a neutral, encyclopedic tone with the use of such breathless, hyperbolic phrases as "critical acclaim" and "universal acclaim." We've had this discussion often in the past and always draw the same conclusion: that before we even think about using such an extreme term, a movie has to have stood the text of time and be a widely acknowledged masterpiece as judged by scholars and cinema historians. Citizen Kane has critical acclaim. The Avengers 2 got good reviews within the parameters of an action movie, but is it Citizen Kane? High Noon? On the Waterfront? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not every movie listed as critally acclaimed has to be on par with Citizen Kane. The only reason descriptions like 'mixed' 'positive' and 'negative' are to provide a summary that sums up the following paragraph. 71.191.233.2 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have copied the wording from the lead section to the "Critical reaction" section since nobody seems to think that it is original research. If it is, then we should remove both instances until we can attribute this passage to a source. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I reworded the lead to match exactly what can be attributed, until we reach a consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hurray for mechanical reporting. :-P I think we can come up with wording other than "critical acclaim", but we should be able to find a source for this blockbuster where a periodical reports the general critical consensus in non-score language. Is that not doable? While RT and MC have scores worth mentioning, I think we should continually strive to be able to have non-score commentary, especially for a film of this blockbuster magnitude. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see we are all pretty much divided on the reasons for leaving out the interpretive statement, some just object to the phrase "critical acclaim", I am objecting to any such statement as a whole. The RT/MC scores are straight forward and readers can extract from it what they will. As in The Hobbit example, citing too many different labels from RSs may actually confuse readers rather than give them a definite answer.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines say that we should seek commentary. RT and MC are usable, but they're not supposed to replace commentary if we find some. For a film like The Hobbit, the various attributions make sense because it is never an absolute truth how critics received a film. We're not able to give a straightforward answer for The Hobbit because there isn't one, but we can record the various commentary. Why don't we see what we can find for this film, by searching "avengers reviews" or "avengers critics" and seeing what options we have? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The individual reviews are commentary. It's not like we just have the scores and that's it. But go ahead and see what you can find and make your case, perhaps others will agree with you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I just got through watching this film for the first time some minutes ago. And, yep, I agree with the IP and Eric. Pretty silly to me to make a big deal out of directly stating that the film is critically acclaimed, or received mostly positive reviews, when it obviously is/did. And while it can be argued that "It's obvious to our readers as well," there are a lot of people who are not familiar with Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and will perhaps wonder why it's especially relevant that those sites are mentioned instead of only quoting individual critics. I've heard all the above types of arguments before on Wikipedia, and nothing can convince me that it's better to simply go without a lead-in summary (in the lead and/or in the Critical reception section) in cases such as these. The lead, considering that most people (according to statistics) only read the lead of a Wikipedia article, and considering that the lead is supposed to summarize a topic's most significant aspects, should especially make it clear that the significant majority of critics liked this film...instead of simply stating "The film garnered numerous critical awards and nominations, including Academy Award and BAFTA nominations for best visual effects." Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Tone of section

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section of "Cast" in which Loki and Captain America's character is describes does not fit the tone of the rest of the article; rather informal. Facts appear sound, recommend rewrite in order to better fit with Wikipedia's general tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.33.233 (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please point to what exactly you feel is informal? I read it over to see if I could help, but I felt it was fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning Thanos in Plot summary

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Quick question, why not mention Thanos by name in the plot summary. It simply says "In the first of two post-credits scenes, the Other confers with his master about the failed attack....". I am new here so maybe I'm missing something. Would love to read an explanation from someone experienced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitku53 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is settled territory, with consensus reached over the course of weeks here, at Iron Man 2 and elsewhere. The upshot is that if the manifest content of the movie itself doesn't say something, then we can't claim in the plot section that it does. This is why we have the footnote. Thanks for asking before doing anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your very quick reply. That makes sense. On the Captain America 2 page, they almost do the same thing re: the post credits scene. "A mid-credits scene takes place in a HYDRA lab, where Baron von Strucker is keeping Loki's scepter and two prisoners: one with superhuman speed, the other with telekinetic powers." However, on that page, they actually hyperlink to the character pages. That seems wrong to me given your explanation, a footnote seems the correct way to fix this. I don't have the ability to edit that page unfortunately (it must be semi-protected and I'm new?) --Amitku53 (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually Iron Man 2 also has the "hammer" linked to Mjolnir and "discovery" is linked to Thor. Would it then be consistent for "master" to link to Thanos? --Amitku53 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, given the footnote acknowledging that it's Thanos, I don't see why not. (This follows on the Mjolnir example; Strucker is linked since, I'm told, a line of dialog calls him "Herr Strucker.") --Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted this linking before seeing this discussion. Wouldn't the linking fail WP:EGG? It is linked in the footnote though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just operating on the Mjolnir example. I can go either way on linking "Thanos." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many similar Marvel articles (Iron Man 2, Captain America 2) where the post credit scenes are linked in a "non intuitive" way. I think the linking is a graceful compromise from the original discussion of not explicitly referencing Thanos, Thor, Quicksilver etc. Please let me know so that I can re-add the link or remove them as appropriate. --Amitku53 (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the other MCU film articles, and they all are conforming to WP:EGG, so in this case, Thanos should not be linked in the plot section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, Piping the phrase "his master" to Thanos would not violate WP:EGG as a reasonable person would expect to taken to an article about The Other's master. The bigger issue is 'should we?' We haven't yet because Thanos is never identified onscreen so is piping a link to Thanos, the same as naming Thanos directly?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess we should look at it against Mjolnir on IM2, Cosmic Cube/Tesseract on Thor and Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch on CapTWS then. It would apply to those pages as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That was the point I was trying to make, is that it's inconsistent across IM2, CA2, and Avengers. I'm cool with "all footnotes" or "all hyperlinks" but it's weird to me that we're inconsistent.. - Amitku53 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point, re: consistency. I guess if we footnote "Master" and link to Thanos in the footnote, we don't need to link to Thanos a second time, in the plot. "Large hammer" isn't footnoted, so I guess we should link it there. Or should be it be footnoted like "Master"?

These things might sound nitpicky, but to someone who's not us, who's not familiar with the comics, these links might seem like easter eggs without the help of footnotes. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with all footnotes. Will make the change later today. - Amitku53 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Trailer views

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Favre1fan93: there seems be some conflicting/confusing data regarding the number views the first trailer had in its first 24 hours. One source says it had over 10 million in iTunes, the other says 20.4 million. It would seem likely that the second figure is global views but the source doesn't specify so I'm not sure if would be WP:OR to say so. Regardless it would probably be better if these figures were presented together, uninterrupted by other information like reviews or record-keeping. It should also be presented (elaborated upon) in a manner that doesn't appear to be so conflicting, if possible.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the iTunes number is downloads while the 20.4m is views. Would it be better if it was combined to: "...was downloaded over 10 million times in its first 24 hours, breaking the website's record for the most-viewed trailer,[135] and received 20.4 million total views.[137] The iTunes record was surpass..."? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

UK title

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

"Classified" is a ridiculous wording given that "(Marvel) Avengers Assemble" is how the title actually appears onscreen in the UK, and seems to have it's origins in some misunderstanding that only the BBFC classified (i.e. rated) the film as "Marvel Avengers Assemble." Likewise the discussion of the different tile in the "Release" section is clearly rooted in the way things developed at the time, prior to the actual release in the UK, before it was clear how the title appeared on screen. I'm not sure why some people seem to have an issue with accepting that "Avengers Assemble" is the title in the UK, but it clearly is. Or do I have to post a screen-grab? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"classified" is better than "released", because released under a title is different to being called that title officially. Also, the information on the title that you added to the article was original research, and pretty unnecessary as well. No one else has had an issue with this, and if they do, they should discuss such a change here first. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you work that one out? The title of the film officially in the UK and Ireland is Avengers Assemble. "Classified" is ambiguous because in a UK context "classification" is synonymous with "rating," and as noted above it would seem that it crept into the article when all editors had to go on was the BBFC classification record. Even then, as was noted at the time, the BBFC legally have to classify works under their actual release title, so it wasn't something they just made on their own volition.

Time, of course, has moved on. The film was released in the UK/Ireland, and lo and behold the title onscreen is "(MARVEL) AVENGERS ASSEMBLE," and to try to claim that saying that's what it says is somehow original research is preposterous, and smacks of an attempt to game the system.

In contrast "released" is widely understood to mean one thing, i.e. the actual showing of the film in cinemas. For example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) says, "released in the United States, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," not "classified..." Nick Cooper (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see the extensive discussion that has previously taken place regarding this, here: Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)/Archive 2#Marvel Avengers Assemble. If you still wish to change the wording, please make it known you wish to change this consensus, so we may start the discussion again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So basically you think we have to stick to the tenuous result of a discussion that actually predates the release of the film, erroneously pushing the line that the title "Marvel Avengers Assemble" was purely down to the BBFC? Yet the title onscreen is "Marvel Avengers Assemble", the same title on the covers of the Region 2 DVD and Blu-Ray, the title under which the BBC is currently screening it, and - most importantly - what Marvel UK call it on their own website. I mean, seriously, why this resistance to accepting that the film was released under that title in the UK and Ireland, and it wasn't just some arbitrary change by the BBFC? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the bigger question right now is why we have the UK title in the lead at all. As this film is not a UK production, this should all be relegated to the release section. And as it is throughly covered there, it should be removed from the lead. I believe that satisfies your issue, yes? The release section of the page covers what it was actually released as in the UK (and the U.S. for that matter). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, so now there's clear evidence that the film was released and not just "classified" in the UK and Ireland as "Marvel Avengers Assemble," suddenly you think it doesn't need including in the lead at all, even though it's common Wikipedia practice to do so with such alternative titles used in other English-speaking territories? Nick Cooper (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We always new that this was the case. You have not provided any new "evidence" for anything. The only difference between the previous version and your version is that you wanted to change "classified" to "released", but released is incorrect because it wasn't just released as that title, it was called that itself, something you have argued yourself. Anyway, I agree with Favre that the info is probably better placed in the release section, and that decision has nothing to do with this conversation. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, are you trying to say that it was not released in the UK/Ireland as "Marvel Avengers Assemble," as it clearly was? Looking back at the Talk archives, it's clear that "classified" was dubiously settled upon because at the time some editors were claiming that the film had only been classified (i.e. rated) by the BBFC with that title, and disputed that it was the actual title for the UK release. Apart from being potential ambigious, retaining "classified" now makes no sense whatsoever, and this sudden desire to remove the alternate title from the lead paragraph completely smacks of throwing rattles out of prams, given that it is fairly standard practice to list different titles in English-speaking territories. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No. We fully support that it is/was released as "Marvel Avengers Assemble". The Release section is accurate in reflecting this as such, by the Empire source, official website and the two classification boards. What we are saying, is that we should remove from the lead "(classified under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble in the United Kingdom and Ireland)," because it is not a UK or Ireland production. For any instance where a film releases under a different title outside of the production country (in this case the USA), it should be noted in the Release section. And it is. So as I saw your edit, you just wanted to change "classified" to "released" in the lead. Additionally, as Adam pointed out, the bit in the release section does not really add much to what is there, because we have previously stated that that was the released title. So by removing the lead part, that should solve everything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That still sounds like we're in rattles and pram territory, given that it is common practice on Wikipedia to include alternate English-language titles in the lead, whether it's an American film titled differently elsewhere (e.g. Battle: Los Angeles/Battle: LA, Fever Pitch/The Perfect Catch, Point of No Return/The Assassin, etc.), or a non-American film titled different in the States (e.g. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone/...Sorcerer's Stone, Léon/The Professional, Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior, etc.). It can also be said to be necessary to include the alternate title/s in the lead, given that both Avengers Assemble (film) and Marvel Avengers Assemble redirect here.

Aside from that, the "Release" section is still ambiguous because it details the developing conflicting indirect sources, without making reference to what must be seen as the final confirmation, i.e. the actual title on the screen, posters, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on credits

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

So I saw this screenshot and I think we added this incorrectly. The first line is the correct "Based on" credit. The second (the Cap stuff) is just legal representation material. Very similar how DC is now legally required to state that Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in all material where he appears or is mentioned. As an example, the new Batman v Superman trailer has the based on as "Based on characters from DC Comics" and the credits for Superman and Batman's. But one would not put that in the "Based on" field. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You maybe onto something. Marvel recently settled a similar case with the estate of Jack Kirby. However its important to note that the Kirby settlement was reached two years after the release of The Avengers and the source doesn't mention how this applies to films or other creators like Joe Simon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, Marvel reached a settlement with Simon too.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. So while Marvel has to state this representation, it is not something we should feature in the "Based on" field. That would just be the Avengers comic one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Should we mention the after credits scene ie Tag?--88.104.133.87 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Which one?--88.104.138.119 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.129.157 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to tag--88.111.129.157 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No. It is irrelevant to the overall plot or knowledge of the events of the film. Mentioned elsewhere in the article where it is more appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

What about the fact that it was filmed after the premier, shawarma scene.--88.104.133.94 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As stated, noted appropriately in the post-production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanos

Latest comment: 9 years ago30 comments7 people in discussion

Look, either the character who appears at the very end of the film is Thanos or he isn't Thanos. If he is identified as Thanos by a reliable source, the article should simply say that he is Thanos. If he is not identified as Thanos by a reliable source, then you shouldn't even have a piped link identifying him as one. Is that really so hard to understand? So I think this revert of my edit was ridiculous, frankly. The more recent edit here by TriiipleThreat is even more bizarre. If the character at the end of the film isn't identified as Thanos by a piped link, then there is obviously no need for a reference clarifying that it is Thanos. TriiipleThreat should be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Without re-opening this can of worms, which has been rehashed several times and always ending in the same result, please search the talk archives for the rationale of the consensus of editors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comment simply makes no sense. You restored a ref that I removed from the plot section. The sole purpose of that ref was to make it clear that the character the piped link identified as Thanos was indeed Thanos. If the plot section does not use a piped link to identify the character as Thanos, then there is no need for the ref. Your revert was unjustified, and you should be reverted in turn. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary was "if, for some reason, the character cannot simply be identified directly as Thanos, then the piped link indirectly identifying him as Thanos is not acceptable either - see talk", it made no mention of the footnote as being problematic so in good faith I restored what didn't appear to be problematic for you. But for the record, I see no problem with the piped link, as one would expect to be taken to an article about the specific master, and not an article about masters in general. Also there is nothing wrong with foot noting to provide readers with additional information though the editor's note would need to be reworded if the piped link is removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The piped link is an easter egg link; see WP:EGG. No one knows when they click on it that it takes them to Thanos. Ergo, it is inappropriate. Your comment "I see no problem with the piped link, as one would expect to be taken to an article about the specific master, and not an article about masters in general" is a piece of nonsense, because no one reading the article who is not already familiar with the details of the Marvel universe knows that the master in question is the comparatively obscure Thanos. Normal readers of the article are never even going to read that footnote, so your justification for it is again nonsense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So "normal readers" do not thoroughly read articles, that is nonsense.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh? Really? It's precisely because many readers do not thoroughly read articles that articles have leads. The purpose of a lead is to briefly summarize the article for people who cannot be bothered reading the whole thing (and no doubt many people cannot be bothered). In any case, it's quite reasonable to assume normal readers will not read obscure footnotes. So, your edit restoring the footnote was ridiculous, and it should be reverted. I hope that happens soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion of readers are disturbingly low. There is nothing obscure about the footnote, it is as prominent as any footnote. And judging by the article's history, I highly doubt consensus will change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I am simply stating what should be obvious, though apparently it is not obvious to you. I find your comments quite bizarre. I remain hopeful that other editors will be willing to tell you that you are wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As with the previous consensus, it should be "his master" linked to Thanos, along with the note ref. This will not violate WP:EGG, because a reader will not be thinking they are going to an article about "master(s)", but the article of who the Other's master is. Additionally, we can not outright link to Thanos because he is never mentioned as such in the film. That would be WP:OR. By adding the refs next to the linking I stated before, it confirms that the linking can be correct and is not some user trying to impose their own opinions or theories as to who the character was in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93 are correct about the Thanos/Other solution that WikiProject Comics editors hammered out after a long, drawn-out consensus discussion. I'm sure FreeKnowledgeCreator means well, but he going against a multitude of editors' hard-won consensus, and it makes no sense to re-argue a long-settled issue. Wikipedia works on consensus, and as he's not bringing up any new issues, he's arguing over a settled matter. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93's comment (" This will not violate WP:EGG, because a reader will not be thinking they are going to an article about "master(s)", but the article of who the Other's master is") only shows that he or she does not understand, perhaps because he or she does not want to understand, the purpose of the guideline. I'm disappointed to see anyone making such a foolish, tendentious argument. The point of WP:EGG is perfectly simple: people need to know specifically which article they are going to when they click on a link. If someone does not know that the Other's master is Thanos, then they don't know where they're going when they click on "master". To Tenebrae: I don't care how long it took to develop the current consensus, or how many editors support it: you're still wrong. I see no reason to respect the views behind a consensus if they make no sense. The Thanos piped link does not benefit the article, and without pointing the finger at anyone in particular, I'm not afraid to call it a piece of fanboy nerdishness. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If WP:EGG truly means what you say it means, then almost every piped link on Wikipedia would be in breach of that rule, but this is not the case. The reader knows that by clicking on this link, they will be taken to the page about The Other's master, where they can find out more information about said master if they so wish, including the fact that his name is Thanos. They don't know that the page they are going to is called Thanos, but they do know that it is about Thanos, so WP:EGG is not being breached. Also, you can proclaim that everyone else is incorrect if that is what you believe, but that doesn't mean you get to decide when to ignore consensus. This is understandably frustrating, but it is how Wikipedia works - if everybody is wrong except for one person, then that is just too bad, as consensus, by its very nature, will go in favor of those who are incorrect. Your little jab that we are intentionally adding this link to the article because we are fans of the subject (which most of us are, I think it is safe to say) is also ridiculous, as by not having this link we are stunting a potential readers chance of learning about the topic at hand, which is what an encyclopaedia is for. Your own personal opinion may be that readers are lazy and they mostly just want to read the lead, but doesn't change the fact that somebody will be reading this plot summary, and they will read about a mysterious master and will want to know more (they may also watch the film and have the same confusion/interest, and come here for answers). As an online encyclopaedia Wikipedia allows us the opportunity to send these readers straight to where they can discover new information on this mysterious character. Since it is a plot summary we can't add anything that isn't explicitly said onscreen, per Wikipedia regulations, but we decided that linking to the appropriate page and adding a reliable ref that says (paraphrasing) "the master = Thanos" would be the best course of action for this article. So you can whinge all you want, but you have no grounds to claim that WP:EGG is being violated, or that new consensus must be sought. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with adamstom97, who makes the important point that because the phrase "the Other" has a reliable-source citation (from one of the few people unequivocally qualified to state it) that the Other is Thanos, the the footnote itself prevents the link from being an Easter egg. The film does not say it is Thanos, but the footnote does; the link goes to Thanos. No Easter egg whatsoever. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 says that almost every piped link on Wikipedia would be unacceptable if my interpretation of WP:EGG were correct. I wonder how he knows this? Did he perform a survey of all articles with piped links? He commented, "They don't know that the page they are going to is called Thanos, but they do know that it is about Thanos, so WP:EGG is not being breached." Um, no. That's nonsense. No one can know that the page is "about Thanos" if they do not know that the page is called Thanos. All the complaints about my comments notwithstanding, those who've disagreed with me have simply shown that they don't understand the point of the guideline on piped links. The real reason the piped link is there seems simply to be that someone thinks linking that way is cool. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Per directly from WP:EGG: "make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." By linking "his master" we are doing just that. The reader expects to be taken to an article about his (the Other's) master. What's more, there is even have a note ref tag next to it that states how Feige confirmed after the fact that it was indeed Thanos, and the page is linked there as well. So there is not really any way WP:EGG has been violated or a reader would not be expecting to be taken to some other type of article. Just because Thanos is not named in that link does not mean it is unexpected to have been brought to that page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You have missed the point over and over again. No one expects to be taken specifically to Thanos when they click on the link. WP:EGG exists so that readers specifically know where they are going when they click on a link; so the link violates the guideline no matter how cool you and other editors think it is link that way. The note ref tag is not normally going to be visible to readers looking at the plot section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do you think people expect to go when they click on the link called "his master". Myself, I would expect to go to a page, or a section of a page, about his master ... and that is exactly what happens. No, they didn't know that that page would be called Thanos, but the whole point of piping is so that you can be linked to the right page, but so that the text remains appropriate for the context that it is in. If you still think that WP:EGG is being violated, then it is you who is missing the point. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually with FreeKnowledgeCreator here (and if someone could link to the aforementioned consensus, that would be useful; a search of the Wikiproject archives doesn't turn up anything obvious). Here's my question: if we're so sure about Thanos being the master that we're going to link to the Thanos article, why not just make it crystal clear and say something like "confers with Thanos, his master..." and then include the noted podcast as a citation? If it's truly reliably sourced, then there's no need to be cute about it... right? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Because — as talk-page discussions including this one and this one have said over and over (building on the consensus, including an admin's, regarding Thor's hammer in Iron Man 2 here and here) — the manifest content of the movie itself does not say Thanos. We can't say what the movie does not say. If we do so in this case, it gives the misleading impression that this specific movie definitely established the name in the MCU. As we know from Cosmic Cube / Tesseract here and Bruce Banner / David Banner on TV, not all names transfer from comics to screen. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has reached the end of its usefulness. Adamstom97's comments do not deserve a detailed rebuttal. WP:EGG is being violated by the piped link, as editors don't know to which article they go when they click on it, but I can see that there is no point discussing this further. The link is an unfortunate case of fanboyishness overruling normal guidelines. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not true, for all the detailed reasons and examples that your editorial colleagues have given at great length and with great patience. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my position, Tenebrae. WP:EGG is being violated, and I am still in favor of delinking that passage. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make it true. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a matter of "truth," since what you consider true someone else may not — you don't have divine guidance into "truth" any more than I do. What it is, is a matter of consensus by a number of Wikipedia editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I know it's been discussed before and a consensus has previously been established, however opinions change and whilst I'm not as experienced an editor as some of you, I think it's worth reopening the discussion. I'd say that FreeKnowledgeCreator has a pretty valid point, the link is not intuitive and would be in violating of WP:EGG, it is in no way clear that it is going to link to Thanos to the uninitiated until the link is moused over, meaning the article isn't displaying the information clearly or obviously. Having the link say Thanos increases the clarity of the article whilst reducing piping. And as for the consensus, I think it's worth remembering Consensus can change, because it seems that multiple people feel this way so it's worth discussing. Bisted1 (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Going with previous consensus, I would say the footnote explains it, clarifying any potential confusion. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to respectfully continue to disagree. As to your repeated declaration of consensus, of the last four people to have commented on this particular thread, three of them oppose the current styling. I'd suggest that the previous consensus is no longer valid given that by it's very definition it requires "general agreement or concord; harmony", which we've established there isn't, and perhaps now is the time for consensus to be re-established rather than just sticking to something decided a while ago. It has been stated by multiple people that they do not feel the footnote by itself adequately explains, on top of which Wikipedia is meant to be an easily accessible resource, reading footnotes, particularly on mobile devices, is inconvenient and counter to those ideals when there is an easier option. If people feel that it doesn't adequately explain it then it is obviously not doing what you believe it to be doing. WP:Readers_first means that we should be aiming to have this article provide reliable and accurate information in a way the Reader will understand, which it is currently not necessarily doing. Bisted1 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RE "of the last four people to have commented on this particular thread, three of them oppose the current styling." I'm only seeing yourself, Orange Suede Sofa and FreeKnowledgeCreator opposing the status quo. Adamstom97, TriiipleThreat, Favre1fan93 and myself all favor the status quo. You should not have made the edit tonight given clear lack of consensus for it. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I posted the previous comment nearly three weeks ago and no-one has replied, so, without wishing to upset anyone, I feel an appropriate amount of time has been waited to allow people to have their say on this issue and no one has disputed the above statement, so I'm going to change it to Thanos. Bisted1 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody responded since other editors considered this a long-settled issue; I, for one, didn't even see there'd been any additional discussion. To change a long-stable article's status quo, you need a consensus. If you feel no consensus was reached, then the status quo remains. I think at this point, if you feel that strongly about it, you need to call for RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Add Codenames to Plot Synopsis

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is confusing to readers to see the names Captain America, Iron Man, etc listed as the main heroes of the movie at the beginning of the article, but then have nothing in the plot section which makes it clear that Rogers, Stark, etc are these same characters. It should be worded for people who have never seen a MCU film. The names Rogers, Romanoff, Stark, Barton, etc are perfectly acceptable for refering to the characters throughout the bulk of the synopsis (since that is generally what they call each other in the script), however the codenames should be mentioned in brackets after the first use of their real names, given that this is how the characters are widely known (it is the codenames, not the given names, which are used on most of the film titles, advertisements, merchandise, etc). Not to mention that these heroes have existed in comic book & animation for around 50 years under their codenames. Rocket1377 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Box office records

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Should we include a "surpassed by" field in the table instead of removing them? The records the film held are still notable from a historical perspective and besides we already have a "preceded by" field.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should because Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 has a chart about records that have been surpassed. And1987 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's no significance to have such a "previous/current holder" column. Each of those records may have a particular holder and can be broken in the future. It's troublesome to turn back and refresh the names every time when a film sets a new threshold for an item, especially when such a format may be duplicated and present on all other film pages. Simply having the statistics of this movie itself is enough. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 17:22 on 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Not "current" but "surpassed by", there is a difference. The significance is that this film held the record, which adds to its notability.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. What I said "current" was referring to the Harry Potter page where there's a "Current record" column. But either way, there's still no significance. If it broke a record, it broke a record. We only mention the current position of a university on a particular league table, and don't need to say it has surpassed another one to be there. This sounds like those previous holders are "losers" and I'm sure a really good or record-breaking movie doesn't need that to boost its notability. We already have numerous news articles doing this "boosting" job with words like "smash" or "knock out", not to say Box Office Mojo frequently cited on this page, where all kinds of rankings are clearly listed. If readers are interested, they can click and see those cited pages. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 15:43 on 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to The Avengers (2012 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

204.85.16.5 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done, no request specified.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"classified under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble in the United Kingdom"

Latest comment: 8 years ago37 comments7 people in discussion

I tried to change "classified under the name" to "titled" because it is incorrect use of the word "classified". I mean, it simply doesn't make any sense. "officially titled" would be fine. "classified" is not. — Film Fan 12:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Check the archives for one of the billion topics on the subject. Also read the release section. The UK title varies all over place even between Marvel sources. When the BBFC and IFC classified the film, it was done so with that title. Which is why that was determined to be the most neutral wording.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trawling through archives for this. It's the wrong word. Film classification is about rating the film is given based on content. The title has nothing to do with classification. The official title ("Marvel Avengers Assemble") is not determined by the classification process - it is the title used by the distributor in official documents and the onscreen title. If the title used by the BBFC was different from the official title, it could perhaps be worded as such, but the current wording is nonsensical. — Film Fan 13:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

And I'm not wasting my time going through this again, but yes film classification is about ratings but when it was classified that is the name they used to assign the rating. Also as I said there is no "official title", as even sources from Marvel differ. Others are welcomed to weigh in if they choose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope others do chime in because the official title absolutely is "Marvel Avengers Assemble". — Film Fan 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In this context, yes "classified" is correct. As Triiiple stated (and you'd see from the plethora of previous discussions), there are a vast variety of reliable sources stating what the title is in the UK, including even from Marvel. In order to best present the info, editors looked to the film classification bodies as a way to choose which of the many titles to go. So "classified" should be there in some form. We can't say "titled" because the BBFC and IFCO didn't give that title to the film, that was what was given to them to classify the film. That is why it is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, regardless of official titles, surely it makes more sense to mention the WP:COMMONNAME, which is simply Avengers Assemble... — Film Fan 10:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article doesn't say "classified as Marvel Avengers Assemble", it says "classified under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble". There is a difference. And Avengers Assemble is not the common name, The Avengers is. The way the article is currently is correct, and there has been more than enough discussion about this already. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Common name in the UK. And yes, I understand grammar, thanks, and it's still nonsensical to use the word when it's the official title and "official" would do just fine. — Film Fan 00:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, use of the word "classified" makes the article sounds ignorant of English usage. Someone appears to have decided that BBFC and IFC have "classified" the film under that title (by what reasoning I can't fathom), but it is not proper English usage. Given that so many people have complained about the use of the word, I would say it's the those who keep an eye on this page who are wrong. Hzh (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of people who complain about this, but there are also a lot of people on the other side of it as well, and the consensus of the discussion(s) as a whole is to use the classified wording. And there is nothing wrong with it in terms of "proper English usage", the only issue is people misunderstanding it, which is an unfortunate product of the situation. The fact is, there is no consistent name for the film throughout reliable sources. so we cannot definitively say that the film is "titled" or "known as" Marvel Avengers Assemble in the UK. However, we do know that that title has been used in the UK and is significant enough to be mentioned here, so we needed to come up with an alternative to use. Since the BBFC and IFC officially used the alternate title when they classifed the film, we decided to say that it was "classified" under that name, which is the truth. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If I understand the reasoning, that may be why the word "classified" is wrong. You classify a film into a broader category (e.g. a genre, a film rating, etc.), which would be what BBFC might do, but you don't classify a film into its film title (unless you are talking about different films with the same title being classified under one title, which is not the case here, and it would still sound stupid if it is). You don't classify something into itself, it just does not make sense. I'm not sure what IFC would classifying it as. Hzh (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether somewhere along the line somehow has somehow confused "listed" as "classified" - BBFC would list the film as "Marvel Avengers Assemble", but it doesn't classify the film under the title "Marvel Avengers Assemble" (the job of BBFC is to classify films into age rating, not film title). Hzh (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "classified under" with "classified as". If we said that the BBFC classified the film as Marvel Avengers Assemble, then you would be correct; that is both poor English and false. However, we are saying that the BBFC classified the film under the title Marvel Avengers Assemble, meaning that when they classified the film, they called it Marvel Avengers Assemble rather than Marvel's The Avengers. Like I said, it is easily misunderstood, but it is not wrong, and it seems to be the best we can do. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. "Classified as" has much the same meaning as "classified under". Even if you take them as different, the word "classify" still means putting something into a larger category or group something (see definition [1] [2]), so you are still using the word wrong. Like I said, BBFC doesn't classify films as/under/into film title, it classifies films into age ratings. Hzh (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was classified into a larger category (12A) under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble hence "classified under". Just as the tiger shark is classified into the genus Galeocerdo under the name Galeocerdo Cuvier.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are saying something that doesn't makes sense, because there is only film, as I have already said, you don't classify something under itself. You are misusing the word "classify" and wrong to claim that BBFC classified it under the title because that isn't the job of BBFC. People will always try to change it because you are using the word in a way that is not recognized by most people how the word should be used. All you are doing is just repeating the opinion of a few here, while the rest of the readers simply puzzled over the word. What exactly is wrong with finding a more suitable word, like "listed"? (And I do believe people here have mistaken "listed" for classified".) Also you are misusing the shark analogy, the shark is not classified under itself, because another species may very well turn up be classified under the genus. Species and genus are recognized different taxonomic rank, and there is no such similar ranking in film titles. Hzh (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The BBFC does classify film into ratings categories and when they did in this case the name "Marvel Avengers Assemble" was used. I have no clue what you mean by "under itself". Also "most people" have not felt the need to challenge the wording. And every time some one does, concensus is re-affirmed to keep the wording. Is it perfect? No, but it is the most accurate and neutral solution considering the circumstance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, BBFC listed the film as "Marvel Avengers Assemble" they classified into a rating category. Please note the distinction between the two words. Left's see it this way, you don't classify TriiipleThreat under TriiipleThreat, because you are the same person. "Classify" must necessarily mean putting something into a broader category, and you cannot be something broader than yourself. If you still don't understand, using the shark analogy, the species of shark can be placed into a genus, and that genus must be a larger category than can accommodate many different species of sharks. That there is only one species at present does not change the fact that it is a broader category. The genus is a bigger box into which smaller boxes (the species) may be put (i.e. the genus and species are not the same). Hzh (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I am classified as a registered user under the name TriiipleThreat. It's classified in a larger category with give name. Same goes for the tiger shark and Marvel Avengers Assemble. It's not "under itself" as you say.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The broader category is "registered user". You are classified under "registered user", not classified under the name TriiipleThreat. The "under" in your sentence does not refer to "classified", it refers to you as a registered user. Your sentence should read as 2 separates parts - "I am classified as a registered user" and "I am registered under the name TriiipleThreat". Using "as" or "under" with "classified" alone does not change the sense. In the way it is phrased, the film is classified under (or as) "Marvel Avengers Assemble", which is wrong. Hzh (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

We reached a compromise consensus on a highly contentious issue. Compromises by their nature may be imperfect — and unless we want to turn the heat up to boiling again and spend weeks on this, the best thing to do would be respect the compromise. The British Board of Film Classification classifies films — that's what it does. It doesn't rename or retitle films — it classifies them. Hence the compromise wording. If you want to waste a couple of hours reading the highly contentious debate on this in the archives, go ahead.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If the compromise means using a wrong word, then the compromise is wrong. It is up to you to explain the use of the word, so far I haven't read a convincing explanation. BBFC lists films it classified, it doesn't classify film into film titles, it classifies films into rating category. Hzh (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right the BBFC doesn't classify film into film titles but that's not how the sentence reads.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The word isn't wrong, you just can't seem to understand it. We have never said that the film was classified as Marvel Avengers Assemble, we are saying that when it was classified (into a rating category) it was under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble. Those are two separate things, and everyone else understands that, hence the standing consensus. If you seriously still don't understand, then that sucks, but like Tenebrae said it is really best at this point that you just let it go. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are now entering the realm of sophistry, when people claim a sentence in English doesn't mean what it says. There is no substantive difference between "classified as" and "classified under" or "classified into". The operative word is "classified" (not "as" or "under"). It seems to be an error from a misunderstanding what BBFC does. As I clearly demonstrated in the example given, "I am classified as a registered user under the name TriiipleThreat" was mistaken to be "I am classified under the name TriiipleThreat", when it should be parsed as "I am a registered user under the name TriiipleThreat". The "under" does not refer to "classified". You can argue that the sentence about the film title is elided, but there is really no clue that it is (the argument about using "under" is entirely spurious as I indicated).

You can indeed keep reverting those who think the word is wrong, but you will have to do for as long as the word stays. It is not about me or my understanding - others have objected (and you can't pretend that isn't the case, given that other people's edit on that issue have been reverted), and they will keep objecting simply because it is not proper English. It is wrong to use the argument that because there was a compromised somehow that trumps all the people who think the word used is incorrect. Just because a few people decided that a word could be a compromise doesn't mean that the word should stay - if there is a mistake, we don't keep arguing that it was a compromise, we fix the mistake. You cannot keep using the argument about compromise for something that is clearly wrong. Hzh (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not "clearly wrong." It is correct, as adamstom97 describes and as virtually every other editor interprets the sentence. If you go the BBFC website, you will see that the movie literally is "classified under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble in the United Kingdom and Ireland." You interpret the phrase in some other way; that's one of the beauties and banes of language. But because you interpret it differently from others doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see your quote "classified under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble" when I go to BBFC here, so I have no idea why you are saying "literally". As I said, I am not the only one who complained, and so far, no good explanation has been given here. In fact the discussion here convinced me that some editors here who defended the usage are themselves confused as to what it means, so much so as give an entirely misplaced analogy to sharks. It seems that some intended the sentence to be read as "classified [by X for the purpose of Y into Z] under the the name of 'Marvel Avengers Assemble" (with the part in square brackets deleted), but really, that's not how it comes out. It comes out as incoherent and ignorant of English usage, and arguing that somehow using the word "under" would make people understand what you mean is just silly. At best, it is badly-written English, at worst, plain wrong. I can analyse the sentence further to show why it is wrong, but really, it seems that editors here are so involved in this that they can no longer see how it reads to other people, so there is no more point in doing it, and I'll leave you with your "classified". I would just say that the next time someone else change the wording, don't say that it is a consensus or compromise, given that people here just keep asserting rather than reasoning, with some supporting the usage apparently confused as to what it means. Hzh (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You make many hubristic assumptions. Yes, it is literally classified as Marvel Avengers Assemble by the British Board of Film Classificiation. That's what the BBFC does with films ... it classifies them. Most other editors understand this just fine. Perhaps the issue is the small number of editors who don't understand it and then feel the need to call other editors "silly," "confused" and other names. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess you don't understand what "literally" means (or one of those who use "literally" only for effect), especially when you used it with quotation marks. I think you do demonstrate why those who supported this phrasing actually don't know what it is that you think you wrote. People often omit some words when they speak, which is understandable (but wrong when the wording becomes confusing), so when you said "classified under the name Z", you actually mean "classified [by X into category y and listed] under the name Z". The "under" does not refer to "classified", it refers to something omitted ("listed"). That people here are arguing without realizing what it is that they are actually doing, instead talking about it is what BBFC "literally" does, classifying the film under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble just showed how wrong the wording is, and how misguided this "compromise" is (BBFC classifies films into categories/ratings, it doesn't classify films into titles). People cannot read the sentence as what you intended because too many words have been omitted, and neither can those who supported this wording as is clear from the discussion. You simply don't know what you wrote. Hzh (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I know what "literally" means, I know exactly what I wrote, and, incidentally, I italicized the word; I didn't put it in quotation marks as you say above. I think the fact that you're virtually the only one in the discussion who has trouble understanding the line might suggest to you that perhaps it's not everyone else who is wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You've just proven my point, you don't know what you wrote. This is what you wrote and the one I responded to - "If you go the BBFC website, you will see that the movie literally is "classified under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble in the United Kingdom and Ireland."" The quotation marks I said quote something that is the subject of the discussion from the very beginning, not the word "literally". Hzh (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You are still confused. The BBFC literally classified the film as 12A under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble. That is a fact, and if you still refuse to acknowledge it, then seriously please stop wasting our time. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't what Tenebrae said what BBFC literally does and you know it. Seems like you also haven't read what I said. Go back a few comments and you will see that I addressed this point exactly a few times. You should actually say "The BBFC literally classified the film as 12A and listed it under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble." The words "as 12A and listed it" had been omitted. Omission of words is fine if people can understand you, but can cause problem when people don't understand that you have omitted words. In fact I think we have just seen it in action - Tenebrae misunderstood my wording because I omitted a few words, and misconstrued that I meant using quotation marks for "classified" rather than the quote itself (although why he would miscontrued it I don't know, given that it was made clear what I meant in the comment previous to it).

There are a few problems with the omission of words in the first sentence of the article. The word "classified" does not refer to anything in the sentence, because the BBFC has been omitted, and the ratings category has also been omitted. It also does not refer to the name of the film as "under the name" refers to something omitted. So you have to assume that people would automatically add those missing words which is entirely unreasonable. The word "classified" serves no purpose except to lend a spurious air of authority. It is simply badly written English. Hzh (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We have read your comments and we respectfully do not agree with them. You have failed to sway consensus and are now re-hashing the same points. So WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. For all constructive purposes this discussion is over.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Crumbs. Sophistry apart, the sentence reads badly. "Marketed" would be the most usual form. Hogweard (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Enough with the attacks and insults. The phrase reads accurately and encyclopedically. Consensus has long been achieved. As -TriiipleThreat states, WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Closing early per WP:SPEEDY and WP:SNOW. As everyone is pointing out, we use WP:COMMONNAME, not the official name, to choose our titles, disambiguated as appropriate per WP:D when necessary. The current title meets WP:CRITERIA and WP:D policy and guidelines; the proposed title clearly does not. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Avengers (2012 film) → Marvel's The Avengers – official title Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jenks24 (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly not an uncontroversial request so I've converted this to a full RM discussion. Note that Wikipedia favours the common name in reliable sources over the official name. Jenks24 (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Close: As Jenks24 pointed out we use the common name over the official title.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Speedy close - A simple search of the archive shows this has been discussed two or three times before. No point to rehash it unless Jenks24 has a new argument. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"research facility"

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the plot, "research facility" links to Project Pegasus, which is a redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe. I don't recall the facility being named in the film, and I'm not sure that this awkward, crufty list is a good target to link to. Because of the redirect, it's not even clear which facility is intended. I think this link should be removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It was named in the film and it appears to have been linked to a standalone article at the time it was made. But I agree, the link probably should be removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

critic reviews.

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are currently 320 critic reviews listed on rotten tomatoes for Marvel's The Avengers (2012), not 315 as currently listed on Wikipedia. Please change immediately. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.164.227 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)/Archive 5

Contents

Based On

Black Sabbath

Requested move

Link to Age of Ultron comic miniseries

suggested addition to the article

Title in lead sentence.

Critical acclaim

Tone of section

Mentioning Thanos in Plot summary

Trailer views

UK title

Based on credits

Tag

Thanos

Add Codenames to Plot Synopsis

Box office records

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

"classified under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble in the United Kingdom"

Requested move 7 March 2017

"research facility"

critic reviews.