Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Links to add content

Due to my inability to spend time to add content, dumping this here: Marketing and More Box office predictions. Hope someone can add them. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Vision and J.A.R.V.I.S./Ultron

Can this source be added to Vision's section? Or is it too early? Npamusic (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure what's in the EW item that isn't already in the Vision section. Except maybe Whedon's Universal Pictures quote? What do you propose? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It might already be in the article but this implies to me that Vision is created from J.A.R.V.I.S.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that most of this info can be placed in the plot section once we have that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Kudos

Just complimentin' my peeps on such a great Marvel-movie article, right down to how comprehensively that archive links were added. Articles like this make me proud to be a member of WikiProject Comics. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tenebrae! And thank you for watching over it until we can all watch it to come back and contribute! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015

To put the plot on there it was released in Hollywood and soon France so can you please put the plot on the page. 71.38.139.214 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Soundtrack

The soundtrack listing is up. I'll try to create an article, but if anyone else wants to, feel free. Richiekim (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Quoting the world premiere and the US broad release but no other release dates?

I'm not sure if there's a guideline on this in general, but the current release information is somewhat Americocentric given that the film's first wide release will not be in the US. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There are other countries listed in the Release section. Per WP:FILMRELEASE the infobox is limited to just the first and country of origin.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring redlink editor

At least two editors here have reverted multiple non-constructive edit by User:Caitlyn4272000, whom I've warned on his or her talk page to please discontinue edit-warring and to learn the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015

Running time is 143 minutes according to Google search of "Avengers: Age of Ultron running time" RyanNaser (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources seem to vary, but the classification board says 141 minutes. Stickee (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Whedon's mentality coming out of this film

Should we mention anywhere, maybe in the post section about Whedon's mentality coming out of making this film? I was just reading the Buzzfeed article (in which that quote in the development section was added) and I know other press junket pieces have had Whedon talk about how much this film really drained him and pushed him to his limits (ie him moving into the studio to finish editing the film). Can we use any of this material? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Kudos

Want to compliment User:Chris McFeely for his very well-written rewrite of the plot. I had simply hacked away to bring it down from over 1,000 words, and he rephrased and in apt cases reorganized things beautiful. Kudos, sir. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Aw shucks, t'weren't nothin'! - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No Loki

According to a critic who got an early screening of the film, Loki was not seen in the film, which also included a mid-credits scene. here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't exactly go by a random twitter user who saw the film early. Rusted AutoParts 14:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If he doesn't appear when the film is released globally then it can either be noted that he was said to appear but in the end didn't or the info can just be removed altogether.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph does quote Elba saying Loki is in it, so I guess we need to leave it for now, but I absolutely did not see him. It's possible he's in the background in a "weird visions" scene as an Easter-egg extra, or perhaps his shot was cut, but otherwise I'm really not sure what Elba is talking about. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Loki is the shadowy person in Thor's vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.81 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we add the plot?

I watched the film, so do we have the all-clear to add the plot, since it's already playing in many theaters around the world? Also (spoilers), Tom Hiddleston/Loki is not in the movie, Stan Lee is a retired veteran who attends the Avengers' party, Julie Delpy is Madame B (from Black Widow's flahsback) and Linda Cardellini is Laura Barton, Hawkeye's wife. Jal11497 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This comes up with every major movie release, and the answer is "yes". The movie is now in general release, you are perfectly entitled to add it. Somebody will moan about "spoilers" but that goes against Wikipedia policy. The movie is out, add the plot if you can. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1,016 words goes wayyyy against a different WIkipedia guideline, at WP:FILMPLOT. I'll address this in a few minutes. I;m stil at work --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:, have you seen the film (I'm guessing you haven't because of your hiding of the plot before realising that it has gone public :))? If not then why not leave it and then as it is released in various countries around the world, then people begin to copyedit it down? I can look at it tommorow afternoon since it comes out in England tommorow anyway.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I saw it last week. I just hadn't realized it's opened in France, Italy, Norway and Sweden, so I restored the plot and am now trimming it to 700 words or less.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably still have a look over it tommorow anyway, but good luck on cutting it down tonight.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ditto. I've gotten it down to 671, which leaves us nearly 30 words to play with. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Vision PRESUMABLY destroys Ultrons last body. We don't actually SEE this happening, merely a flash, and Vision HAS stated that he would rather not do so.85.229.59.77 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a really good point. It happens off-camera, and all we see is a flash. The movie never shows Ultron's last body definitively destroyed. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015

--39.32.125.156 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Avengers 2: Age of Ultron Movie Info:English 39.32.125.156 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jamietw (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

UK Release

The movie was released today in the UK (23 April). Is this important enough information to be included in the side infobox? In between the Dolby Theatre and North America? I thought it might be since it's full week before North America gets it. Or is the UK not as noteworthy? 109.154.71.44 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the release section. But no. The infobox has the country of origin and the first air date of the film, so the UK is not noteworthy enough.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And anyway, it was released in France, Italy, Norway, Finland and Sweden before the UK. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't it released in several Asian countries on April 22 too? Worth a mention I think.--Krystaleen 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Find a reliable-source citation first. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

After looking into this, I realise the movie was released in most European and a few Asian countries beginning 22 March, not just the UK. But anyway, thanks for responding and I understand what you're saying regarding the country of origin. 109.154.71.44 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Vision's origins

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 seems to be conflicting reports on who actually creates Vision. In interviews and such, Joss Whedon has stated time and time again that Vision (in the film) is created by Ultron. In July 2014, the EW article emerged detailing that Vision is on "Team Ultron". Then we have the short biography for Vision via that leaked promo art work, stating that Vision is programmed by the combined genius' of Tony Stark and Bruce Banner. So is it safe to assume that Vision is only created by Ultron, then re-programmed by Banner and Stark to aid the Avengers? Just want to clear this confusion up. Npamusic (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Speculation is irrelevant since the release of the film. Acbsmith (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

"Satisfied with" / "satisfied by"

Here are three examples from The New York Times, the last of which is a pickup from the news agency Reuters. Both the Times and Reuters use "satisfied with."

• "Hotels Embrace Sustainability to Lure Guests and Cut Costs"

Those who participate in green programs are generally more satisfied with their stay, according to Rohit Verma, a Cornell University professor who has studied...
April 28, 2015 - By AMY ZIPKIN - Business Day - Print Headline: "Hotels Embrace Sustainability, With Beehives, Biodiesel and Unmade Beds"

• "Legs Give Moths a Flying Start"

The lightest ones sometimes don’t open their wings at all, satisfied with a hop and then another hop and so on. Others open them after they are fully airborne.
April 28, 2015 - By JAMES GORMAN - Science - Print Headline: "Legs Give Moths a Flying Start"

• "Centrica Prepared for Takeover Approach-Chairman"

Conn said the government had not made such a request to Centrica. "I think the government are quite satisfied with Centrica the way it is," Conn said.
April 27, 2015 - By REUTERS - Business Day - Print Headline: "Centrica Prepared for Takeover Approach-Chairman"

A site search here [1] turned up not a single example of "satisfied by." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My mistake and apologies- I seem to be misremembering the style guide. Also, I'm not American, so that's probably got something to do with it. Acbsmith (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite alright / all right. (Little joke there for a fellow grammarian!) With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

Please change "Avengers: Age of Ultron is an upcoming American superhero film" to "Avengers: Age of Ultron is the latest American superhero film" because it was released on April-22-2015. Editing is necessary. Shiva Ashok (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 03:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Tonight's plot edits

After seeing the film for a second time, I've made some minor adjustments. First, Klaue's locale is definitely South Africa — while the onscreen text says only "Salvage Yard, African Coast," the cast credits refer to "Johannesburg Cops," "Johannesburg Onlookers," etc. Also, there's no Gemma from Agents of SHIELD. Linda Cardellini is credited onscreen though, curiously, not in the PDF cast credits distributed to press. Josh Brolin is uncredited in both cases.

Sokovia is given as the name of the country and the city both. No mention is made of Stark and Barton retiring from the team; I'm not even sure how one can infer that, since Stark drives off in a car the same as he (and Banner) drove off in the first movie. Additionally, we never definitively see the Vision killing Ultron: All we see is a flash in the background of some woods and no mention is made of the Vision killing Ultron. Finally, Fury at the end tells Romanoff that SHIELD believes it has tracked the remains of the Quinjet, but isn't sure it's the Quinjet since the Quinjet was on stealth mode.

I also found a cool Easter egg: The name of the band in Rogers' hallucination is The Roy Thomas __________ (Quartet? Players? It went by quicky and I didn't get enough of a look). --Tenebrae (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that someone has reverted your edits? After seeing the movie myself, I can confirm everything you say but someone doesn't seem to believe you. 109.154.71.44 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these edits, though user:adamstom.97 doesn't seem to. What's the reasoning behind reverting them? Acbsmith (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've left a collegial note on user:adamstom.97's page asking him to join the talk-page discussion. -Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

When the credits said "Johannesburg", are we sure that wasn't just because they filmed it there, which we know they did? Because a quick look on Google maps shows that Johannesburg is no where near the coast. I think that just saying African salvage yard will be most appropriate, unless we find a reliable source confirming the location. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wakanda is specifically mentioned by Dr. Bruce Banner in his research, and even in the comics, Wakanda is the main source of Vibranium. While the scene is filmed in Johannesburg, the in-movie location is Wakanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.165.10.131 (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

adamstom97- I see what you're saying about Joberg- I'd agree with changing it to "African". It's definitely not Wakanda, though, because it was mentioned that he got in trouble for taking Vibranium out of Wakanda. Acbsmith (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, it's been changed back to Stark and Barton retiring. What's the consesnsus? Acbsmith (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I just watched the film again, and Stark and Barton definitely retire from the team. Just because they never say the word retire doesn't mean that they haven't. And it doesn't mean that they won't return in the next movie. All this means is that they have definitely left, and now Cap and Nat are training new recruits. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Working here and there on the page now. Just for what's here (not sure what the page looks like atm), Klaue got the vibranium out of Wakanda, so where they meet is not Wakanda. Also, I wouldn't read the ending as Barton and Stark retiring, more that they are just not looking to be with the team. If you read those two things as retiring, fine, but I don't think "retiring" as the word should be used. Hope that helps at all with my two cents. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

adamstom97, with all due respect: "Just because they never say the word retire doesn't mean that they haven't." Yes, it does: By not saying they're retiring, they are not retiring. Retiring is strictly your personal, POV interpretation. Mine is that Stark is driving home and will suit up as Iron Man the minute he's needed, and that Barton will come when called. Who's right? You or me? Are you going to insist my interpretation is impossible and could never, ever happen? You really don't think they'll be back for Infinity War?

The point is, these are both interpretations. All we can say is what the movie itself concretely, manifestly shows. And that is: Stark drives away, Barton returns to his farm. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot section

The plot section ends with the statement, "In a mid-credits scene, Thanos retrieves the Infinity Gauntlet and, dissatisfied with the failures of his pawns, vows to hunt for the Infinity Stones personally." I've just seen the film, and that sentence gives a misleading impression of what happens. Thanos doesn't say anything like, "I vow to hunt for the Infinity Stones personally." What he says is something closer to, "Now I'll do it myself"; I don't recall the exact words. I think the final sentence needs rewriting, since in its current form it's too much like editorial interpretation of the film. And on another issue, I'm afraid I'm baffled by this edit by Tenebrae. If "We NEVER see him destroy it", why exactly does the plot section say "the Vision confronts and appears to destroy Ultron's last remaining body"? How can the Vision "appear to destroy" Ultron's body if that is not what is shown? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Close — he smiles and says, "Fine. I'll do it myself" as he puts on the glove, which contains empty spaces for the stones. I'll admit "vows to hunt" seems a little dramatic (I didn't write it) but as he's been trying to collect the stones throughout three previous movies, the antecedent for the pronoun "it" is the process of gathering the stones. Maybe it should be something like "and says it's time to gather the stones personally." --Tenebrae (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We never see the Vision destroy Ultron — all we see is a flash of light in the background of some woods. And the Vision never says he destroyed Ultron.

And you know what? I say it's more likely he absorbed Ultron into the Mind Gem, especially after having made such a big deal of his not wanting to kill Ultron.

That's POV interpretation, of course — but no more so than stating the Vision destroyed Ultron. All we ever see is that he appears to destroy Ultron. If one person can insist Ultron is destroyed, another can insist he was absorbed into the Mind Gem. Who's right?--Tenebrae (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, it should be perfectly obvious that the plot section shouldn't contain any interpretation of the events of the film. It should just say what happens. If Ultron isn't shown being destroyed, then it's nonsensical to say that the Vision "apparently destroys" him. If a big flash of light is all that is clearly shown, then the section should just say so. We don't want to favor one interpretation over another. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly fine by me. One other editor a couple of days ago wrote simply, "The Vision confronts Ultron's last remaining body" after editors were going back and forth on destroy/appears to destroy. I certainly favor that. But shortly after the other editor added that seemingly safe, compromise version, the destroy/appears to destroy back-and-forth began again. I'm all for "The Vision confronts Ultron's last remaining body" and letting it go at that. What say you? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that "The Vision confronts Ultron's last remaining body" on its own can work. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems more accurate, and is just as ambiguous as the film is. Acbsmith (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I know that, from the point of view of fans and "wild mass guessing" theories, the fate of Ultron may seem unclear. But for wikipedia standards, it is not. To move the image focus out of a character that is about to die is a common thing in cinema. As for "absorving" Ultron inside himself, the mind gem has never been stated in screen to have that kind of power. And neither in comics, as far as I know (don't confuse it with the soul gem of Adam Warlock, that's the one with that power). The idea that Ultron may still be alive is just original research, and should not be taken into account. Cambalachero (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that he must have been killed because "to move the image focus out of a character that is about to die is a common thing in cinema" is your personal inference — your POV. The concrete fact is that all we see is a flash of light — we absolutely do not know what happened. And in the movie universe, who knows what the mind gem can do? There are tons of differences between the movies and the comics — like Tony Stark rather than Hank Pym creating Ultron.

All we can say for certain is what the movie concretely, manifestly depicts. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

We have seen that the gem can fire laser beams. The last time we saw Ultron, he was alone and helpless against Vision, and we saw a flash of light. We have seen Vision afterwards, and the Avengers in their post-adventure time, no longer concerned about Ultron (no character gave the smallest hint that Ultron may still be around somewhere). If we skip the unconfirmed things that the gem may do, and stick to the ones we have seen it on-screen to do, then there is no room for doubt: a last laser beam killed Ultron. Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You're making an argument for your case. That's original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. I could come up with equally plausible alternate scenarios. All we can say is what the movie itself actually, concretely depicts. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, we don't know that the gem fires "laser" beams. They could be photon beams, electromagnetic plasma beams or any number of things. I say this to illustrate the danger of assumptions and inferences. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that lasers are beams of photons and of electromagnetic radiation, Tenebrae is right. I would argue that Vision doesn't kill Ultron based on what he said, but I can't prove that, which is why I'm not allowed to add it to the summary. Acbsmith (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

D'oh!

Well, psionic blast then! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's not a "Johannesburg shipyard" as Jo'burg is hundreds of miles inland. Should it be changed to "Wakandan shipyard?" All we really know is it is in Africa. Mikeymo1741 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been changed to "African", which makes sense, given that we know it's not in Wakanda. Also, does Stark use "V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A." or the "hulkbuster" armor? Acbsmith (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The armor is "Hulkbuster", while "V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A." is just the delivery system. See http://www.hypable.com/avengers-age-of-ultron-director-and-cast-answer-our-questions/, at the second-to-last "point". Booyahhayoob (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A." may well be the delivery system. The movie never calls it "Hulkbuster," though. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The article linked by Booyahhayoob does. DinoSlider (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. If the movie doesn't explicitly use that term onscreen, neither can we. However, with a reliable-source citation, we can certainly link to Hulkbuster from the plot's terminology. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the use of "Infinity Gauntlet" should be removed for the same reason. I also don't remember the terms Helicarrier and Quinjet ever being used in an Avengers movie, but those are used in the plot sections. DinoSlider (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right about the gauntlet but both helicarrier and quinjet are used in dialogue.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen it once, so I can't be sure, but I recall hearing "carrier" not "helicarrier". DinoSlider (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

Please add the fact that Ultron killed Baron von Strucker in his cell in the film.

Chroleno 519 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Not a significant plot element. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

New Avengers

The base at the end of the film is captioned, New Avengers, with a capital "N". Coincidentally, the music in the scene is titled "New Avengers" on the soundtrack. So should the team that Cap assembles in the team be labeled New Avengers? This source from Entertainment Weekly does just that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense, but can we make that assumption that that is what the team is going to be called moving forward? One could view it as the base is just a new Avengers training facility and uses capitalization much like Avengers Tower. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be deliberately ambiguous on the filmmakers' part. But unless you're a hardcore fan who knows that such as thing as the New Avengers (proper noun, capitalized) exists, there's no reason for the average moviegoer to read it as other than a new Avengers facility. And besides, the entire phrase is capped "NEW AVENGERS FACILITY. UPSTATE NEW YORK." --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Kudos...

...to whichever editor came up with the description "capital city" — it is much, much better than my "same-name city." My compliments! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Hulkbuster"

Neither the movie nor the filmmakers ever use that term. Just because some website calls it that doesn't make it official or cinematic canon. To call the enhanced Iron Man armor the "Hulkbuster" suit in a Plot-section footnote when no source connected to the movie calls it that is misleading and wrong. A comic-book website cannot unilaterally decide what the filmmakers "should have called something."

Compare it to the Plot-section footnote at The Avengers (2012 film), which says:

In an interview with Movieline, producer Kevin Feige stated that the Tesseract is based on the Cosmic Cube from Marvel comics.[260] After Thor: The Dark World, in an interview with CraveOnline, he stated that it was also the Space Infinity Stone.[261]

That's Feige saying something — not a writer for Comic Book Resources or Newsarama or whatever. Talk about it as being called Hulkbuster in the comics, with citing, elsewhere if necessary — but putting it a Plot-section footnote is giving some comics-site writer the power to change the filmmakers' language and terminology. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Marvel.com refers to it as Hulkbuster. DinoSlider (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It also isn't a writer from CBR (the source) using the terminology. It is terminology from Disney, as the content was something along the lines of "10 facts to know about AoU". So it is from Disney/Marvel, not a third party making that observation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. How about we use that Marvel page as a cite for this, rather than CBR or Newsarama or whatever that is. That would make it all much, much clearer. Thanks for the additional digging. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well the CBR source also provides the clarification on what Veronica actually is. Per the fact in that source: "A satellite in low orbit is always around Banner and at a moment’s notice, Tony Stark can deploy the Hulkbuster armor, get into it and stop the Hulk in his tracks." Having this clarifies that Veronica is the name of the deployment system as well as possibly the containment unit that surrounds the Hulk. By just using the Marvel source, we would only be confirming the armor name, not really what Veronica is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Subsection: RE: "visit"

Then both. I'll go ahead and add the Marvel cite.

And by the way: The Avengers "visit" Klaue? That is so not the right word. user:Adamston.97 doesn't like "investigate"? Fine. But that isn't simply a "visit" anymore than the Iron Man-Hulk battle is "a difference of opinion." Can we get another word there, please? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like it, I said that "visit" is the correct word, which it is. I don't know what you think visit means, but it is definitely fine being used here. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not correct. Per Merriam-Webster, aside from the definition used in phrases like "visited his wrath upon them" or "visited the sins of the fathers upon the children," the defintions are: to go to see in order to comfort or help [and] to pay a call on as an act of friendship or courtesy."

Per dictionary definition, the Avengers are not "visiting" Klaue. If you now knowingly revert to a word in purposeful defiance of its dictionary definition, then that is vandalism. "Go to" is an accurate phrase, and I trust you have nothing against using an accurate phrase as opposed to a word that is clearly problematic.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this sentence: "Together, they go to the base of arms dealer Ulysses Klaue in an African shipyard to obtain vibranium." The "They" is in reference to Ultron and the twins, not the Avengers. Honestly, I'm fine with either, but "visit" has much more pleasant connotation which makes it less appropriate considering the purpose of the trip.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If "go to" flows okay then I have no issue with using it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

To me both "visit" and "go to" are sound like weak writing—possibly "pay a visit to" or "travel to"?—something more descriptive than the first two options. "Descend upon" doesn't seem appropriate(ly neutral) in a Wikipedia context. Can anyone think of any other options?—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So, back to the hulkbuster thing. If "Veronica" is the delivery system, not the armor, how about changing it to say that "Iron Man stops him with additional armor from his V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A. satellite". Also, the Iron Man's Armor in other media spells it in caps with periods, but it's not spelled like that here. Acbsmith (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is. We refer to the "Veronica" weaponry, which is what is presented to us in the film (and Whedon's comments in the note mean to me that it is "Veronica" and not V.E.R.O.N.I.C.A.) and we also note the term Hulkbuster in the note since that is what we all know that the armor used is called (another source for this that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the soundtrack listing, which also uses the term Hulkbuster). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Box Office - Boxing mention

Two problems. One, it was a boxing match, not an MMA fight. Second, it's Mayweather, not Mayweathe.

Should probably be changed to: "...featured Boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.9.160 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have been reverted back to MMA fight. Can one of the editors redo Jedi94's change? - Daft Ada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.99 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Fxguide article is out

Hi all. The traditional Fxguide article looking at the post production done on MCU films is available. As always, it's very insightful. I've only just begun to read it, but figured if a few of us worked on it together, we can get all the relative info into the article. I'm going to get the ref in there so it will be really easy to add new content from the article. Here is the Fxguide one, and another highlighting Territory Studios' UI work in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And Method Studios have one too. --Nick R^Talk 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015

I see you posted the Method Studios Avengers VFX images on your site. Method Studios has been contacted by Marvel and asked to remove it from all online sources as it breaches copyright laws. Thank you very much for your help. RenderBlender (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you got a source that backs this up (Not that it would in any way effect the image being taken down or anything of that kind.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Melissa.Knight@methodstudios.com can be reached for any confirmation. She is representing the copyright holder and has been asked by Marvel to have all of these images removed. Any help to have this image removed is appreciated. RenderBlender (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That maybe but the file is tagged as being a copy protected work and is being used under fair-use rationale.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Marvel owns the copyright and is asking that the images be removed from everywhere. They have been removed from the Method Studios site, where they started from in the first place. I don't understand how this is fair use. Marvel owns these images and wants them completely removed. Please let me know what information I need to provide as proof. I have been asked to help get this image taken down.RenderBlender (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

All non-free files on Wikipedia are used without the expressed consent of the copyright holder, but must have fair-use rationale to justify their use that is consistent with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What the copyright holder wants is typically irrelevant in cases like this. The point of the legal doctrine of fair use, and the more restrictive non-free content policy on Wikipedia, is to guide our hands when we use non-free (i.e., copyrighted) materials for educational or informational purposes, in cases where we do not have the permission of the copyright holder to release a work under a free license. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

neither Scarlet Witch nor Quicksilver

Neither of these names is used in the actual film, as far as i noticed, just Wanda Maximoff and Pietro Maximoff. Should the article mention that, and/or omit any uses of the names Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (other than things like quotes from people discussing the characters/roles)? --70.17.203.31 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither "Scarlet Witch" nor "Quicksilver" were used in the film that I could hear, per my two viewings of it. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Despite not being mention as "Scarlet Witch" or "Quicksilver", they are referred to in promotional media and in the credits as that.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In any case, the plot section does not use those names either Cambalachero (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Rotten Tomatoes consensus?

Is the condenses wrong for anyone else? On the site it reads, "Critic Consensus: Exuberant and eye-popping, Avengers: Age of Ultron serves as an overstuffed but mostly satisfying sequel, reuniting its predecessor's unwieldy cast with a few new additions and a worthy foe.", but it's different here. I hate that "all-in-one" code...

I just fixed it. For some reason Theo's Little Bot hasn't been running Task 22 lately. Technical 13 is working on solving the issue.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Cameos

Jemma Simmons in the Avengers training center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.81 (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Source?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If you've seen the movie, you'll know where to source it. duh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.224.83 (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Having now seen the film twice and looked out for her, she is NOT in the training centre 82.45.105.61 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen the film once, but I did not see Elizabeth Henstridge's character Jemma Simmons. I'll look again tomorrow.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I did see a source confirming that no cast from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. were part of the film whatsoever. I will have to look that up, however having seen the film I do not believe Henstridge was featured. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mcs2050wiki: To be fair, we need a source confirming that she is in the film, not confirmed that she is not, and the IP who suggested it originally has dropped it, so I don't think finding the source will help anyone (Unless you think it can be used in the production section or something)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

2015-05-20 Content deletion

On May 20, 2015 sourced content was deleted without any reason. Why was this content deleted? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you check the article history, you can see that the content is disputed as either trivia or not properly cited. Rusted AutoParts 14:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The first part about Loki being cut is mentioned elsewhere in the article. No need to mention again. The marketing addition is trivial and something we do not need to mention. There is nothing distinctive about the fact that an image used in the trailer never was featured in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment and content deletion is based on wrong assumptions. I'm gonna respond to your comment by dividing my response into two parts: 1.) Thor's dream sequence and 2.) January 2015 trailer. Thor's dream sequence: The main aspect of the content addition was the splitting of Thor's dream sequence into two parts and why it was trimmed down i.e. the opinion differences between Whedon and Marvel Executives, not the info about Tom Hiddleston. Since the info about Tom Hiddleston not appearing in the movie has been already mentioned in the article I reworded the passage accordingly. (See this edit and the edit summary. January 2015 trailer: The content addition wasn't about "the fact that an image used in the trailer never was featured in the film." The content addition was about the information Marvel's marketing strategy for Avengers: Age of Ultron i.e. why and with what purpose a certain image from Thor's dream sequence was added to the January 2015 trailer. And that information is not "trivial", but "distinctive" enough to be mentioned. Based on the foregoing remarks I offer the following rewording as a proposal to get consensus in this issue: Instead film makers decided to split Thor's dream scene into two parts, but the second part was cut because Marvel Executives felt introducing the antagonist from the 2012 Avengers film at this point doesnt' work. Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige explained a trailer scene showing a mysterious woman disrobing in a cave was added purposefully for marketing reasons since her appearance was "an arresting image" which in Feige's view would mean that "‘People are going to read into all this stuff.’" Questions: Can these rewording be added as content. And if not which information in which way can be added? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As previously stated, we have already covered Whedon's conflict with the editors on the dream scene, as well as Hiddelston being removed from the film. As well, the marketing section is already very dense as it is, and what you are suggesting to add is not unique to this film. Many films use this technique all the time, so there is nothing noteworthy or substantial about this. So again, none of this has to be, or should be, added to the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks your comment. With respect to the January 2015 trailer I agree with you after reading your comment. Contentwise we have a consensus on this issue. But I would like to preserve the April 2015 Cinemablend.com source by adding it. This wouldn't add any content nor expand the "very dense" marketing section, but simply add a source leading to some background information on Marvel's marketing strategy for Avengers: Age of Ultron. What's your opinion? With respect to the Thor's dream sequence there's also a chance for a consensus. The Thor subplot in Age of Ultron is (as mentioned in the two sources cited by me) confusing and doesn't make much sense. I think there's a need for a substantial contentwise clarification how the subplot was originally conceived and how the constraints of editing made the final subplot so confusing. But that would require in my eyes a substantial and long reformulation which you certainly would disapprove. Nonetheless I think there's a way to resolve this. I would like to replace the Slashfilm source after the sentence "In the scene, Thor would be possed by a Norn, a goddess of destiny within the Marvel universe while Selvig would quiz her about Thor's hallucination." with the two cited sources above. Both sources together don't only explain Whedon's conflict with the editors on the dream scene (better than the Slashfilm source), but also explain how Thor's subplot was originally conceived and how the constraints of editing made the final subplot so confusing. In other words: Existing content can be maintained while new content can be added and found without the need for a content reformulation and expansion. So what do you think of replacing the Slashfilm source with the Polygon and Collider.com sources? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Because my request for comment was left unanswered for several days I executed my source additions as described above to close the issue. Anyone who has objections to this shall state them here at the talk page to resolve any possible conflict peacefully. Thanks. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Or in the section below, since I've already started the discussion there. And no objection, just a desire to use the actual source and to have a timestamp. It's all good.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Friendly reminder of getting the article to GA status

Hi all, just a friendly reminder that we have until July 13, to get this article up to GA status as per the requirements of Good Topics. Honestly, with a little work to the formatting of the Box office section, some c/e, I think we may be good to get this at least nominated shortly (as it takes forever to get these reviews done these days). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed something. Is this for the 2015 GA Cup? Also, I'd argue that the marketing section could stand to be streamlined. ACB Smith (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The MCU films are part of a Good Topic, and so there is a deadline to get new film articles up to Good Article status to keep this the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Polygon was simply relating what Whedon said on Empire's magazine's podcast; it didn't do any original reporting and Whedon didn't speak with it, so we go to the actual source supporting the claim. Who knows if Polygon got it right, what Whedon said? So now that the actual source has been inserted, the editor who put Polygon in and who wants this claim supported really ought to be the one to sit through the one-hour-43-minute podcast and timestamp where Whedon supposedly says these things. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Collider cite is good to have as a secondary cite since it quotes Whedon directly. But we still need timestamps for where he says this in the podcast. That's why there's a "time = " field in the "cite podcast" template. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to the text above and this edit: I welcome the addding of the original Empire magazine source. But with my Polygon addition I claimed nothing specific from the Empire magazine podcast. Rather I wanted to show how Thor's subplot was originally conceived and how the constraints of editing made the final subplot so confusing in such a way, as described in the 2015-05-20 Content deletion section above, that "Existing content can be maintained while new content can be added and found without the need for a content reformulation and expansion." Simply put: Polygon was added as a background information source. But I didn't know which was the right to place to add this source. So I added it after the sentence "In the scene, Thor would be possed by a Norn, a goddess of destiny within the Marvel universe while Selvig would quiz her about Thor's hallucination." Because the Polygon source was added solely as a background information source without claiming something there was and is no need to give a time stamp. Accordingly I readded the source, but this time at the end to underscore its status as a background information source. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the deadline is fast approaching, I tidied up the article some and nominated it for good article status. I understand that it is supposed to be by a significant contributor, but no one else has done it so far. I will keep up with the nomination and handle any recommendations, though. Alexwho314 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alexwho314: That's fine. Thank you for keeping up with the recommendations too along with the significant contributors here. I finished up the box office clean up today, so the page may just need a nice c/e comb through before the review starts, so if you could help with that, that would be appreciated. If not, we'll just get to it when the reviewer mentions it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Infinity Gauntlet

Hello, I'm just noting here that I've specified what gauntlet it was that Thanos put on his hand, specifically, that it was an Infinity Gauntlet, as confirmed by the movie's producer in this reliable source. A note there said that we couldn't name it because it wasn't called an Infinity Gauntlet in the film. That is ridiculous. Just because it isn't named in the film doesn't mean we can't refer to it as such. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous. The plot section is where we describe what occurs in the film. It's never named, only shown. Stating it was the Gauntlet would be WP:OR (and yes, even though it clearly is that, we can't make that assumption). So we place the ref note next to it, as you can see, which is where we state that it is indeed the Infinity Gauntlet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Favre. Though it is certainly the Infinity Gauntlet, we have to draw a conclusion to make that assertion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Favre and Cyphoidbomb. It's standard, longstanding consensus. --Tenebrae (talk)

Auto-GA fail

Why was this article even nominated? Or was it even nominated? We know the article is incomplete because its still running in theatres. If this has something to do with the Good Topic criteria then I would be disappointed. Reviewers should understand that we cannot complete an article during its theatrical run. Wikipedia has never been about deadlines and articles shouldn't have to suffer because of it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes TriiipleThreat this has to do with the Good Topic (I don't agree at all with it myself). When nominating the topic, we were told that films have three months after their release to be made GA. I asked to have that changed to 6, as that has generally been the time frame we've been ready to nominate these articles. I was pointed out by Juhachi, one of the GT delegates, that "Skyfall for the James Bond films topic,... was nominated at WP:GAN on January 4, 2013, less than 3 months after its release, and became a GA less than one month later, so it's not impossible to get a film up to GA within the current three month retention period." I will also ping both the delegates to alert them to this (and to restate my request to have articles in this topic be given 6 months to complete GAN; 3 months is not feasible). @GamerPro64 and Juhachi: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Since GamerPro64 didn't participate in the GTC nomination, I would first like to hear his opinion on the retention period issue.--十八 01:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

All right. Here's what I'm thinking. Since Age of Ultron was released all over the US on May 1st, we can extend the retention period to August 1st. Anyone else think that's enough leeway? GamerPro64 04:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking, shouldn't the retention period be based on when the films' theatrical runs end, not begin. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

How does one know when the theatrical run ends? GamerPro64 15:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, I don't agree with time frames but if you must I would go with the DVD release date. Besides the plenty of useful behind-the-scenes and production information is featured on the DVD release. All the other MCU articles were nominated after the DVD release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the article will keep failing if it is still in theaters, the DVD release will probably be the best date as that is when almost all runs in the cinema will have ended.

People may think it is a waste of time, but why doesn't someone try and find someone who is willing to give a pseudo-GA Review. That way we can get all of the Good Article stuff done while waiting for the article to "stablise" when the theatrical run ends.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This entire situation is incredibly off to me. I'm in the same camp as you guys, finding that whole "three-month" thing a bit ridiculous when we seem to get auto-failed due to instability and lack of complete box office info. (the box office information changing should have no bearing on the article passing, but that's neither here nor there). I noticed that, on both instances that the articles was nominated less than three months after release, @SNUGGUMS: was the one to fail it. I'm not trying to call him out or insinuate that he doesn't know what he's doing, but I would like to hear from him on what he thinks should be done here. I disagree with some of his reasoning for failing the article (the aforementioned "box office" fact, in particular), but he proves the very valid point that most film articles just aren't ready to be GA material, no matter how well-kept they are, in less than three months.

Again, Snuggums, I'm not trying to come off accusatory or say that this is "your fault", but your failing of GA nominations brings up a valid counterargument to the "three-month" rule. I was wondering what your thoughts were on this whole thing. Sock (tock talk) 19:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ditto51:, what you are suggesting is a peer review, which was already done on the article, albeit before it was released, though not too much sooner that there would be a drastic difference in content. As for what others have suggested, I feel the home media release would be a good date to go off of, rather than the theatrical release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I do agree that it simply isn't feasible to get a movie article to GA within three months of theatrical release. Box office not withstanding, articles on films in theaters are particularly unstable when being nominated for awards (which this so far has) and/or coming under some sort of controversy. Details are especially likely to change during theatrical runs. As I mentioned in the GA review, a film running in theaters is also not broad enough in coverage since home media details (including release date and sales) aren't yet available (same goes for award results for films like this). To be honest, I don't think a film franchise should be nominated for good topic before every film is released, out of theaters, all films in the franchise are FA's or GA's, and it is confirmed that no further entries will be coming out (due to potential breadth/stability concerns). This is why I feel the Good Topic criteria really is flawed for film franchises. Renominating three or four months after home media release is much more reasonable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So any decision on this? Will we use the home media release date as the guideline to start the three month grace period? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess its home media release can work in this case. When does it come out on DVD? GamerPro64 01:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Just pointing out, this would have to apply to all future articles in the topic (and if you have any other topics of current film series), as the same issues will apply to them; that the GAN can't happen until it is out of theaters. As for this now, no official date has been released, but if we look at the two most recent films, their home media was released about 4 months after the US theater release. So we're looking at early September probably. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend taking this up to the Featured Topics talk page to further the notion of the retention period. But I can bump it up to September 1st for the time being. GamerPro64 02:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'll start a discussion there, and point back here. Is Wikipedia talk:Good topics the correct talk page to use? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates might be better. The project is admittedly less active than the other Featured Contents, though. GamerPro64 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I actually see that there is a discussion there already, so I'll add to that one. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be about a month after the home media release to give us time incorporate any information from the release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Age of Ultron has 6 teen choice nominations

Only 4 have been written in the accolades. Please add the 2 more nominations as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.252.221.182 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please supply a reliable source for these additional nominations, as our current source only shows four nominations. Sock (tock talk) 12:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It shows six nominations at 2015 Teen Choice Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.252.221.70 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hulk Armor / Hulkbuster

Actually, while Tony himself refers to Hulkbuster as Veronica, his heads-up-display shows HULKBUSTER. So I guess it's called hulkbuster after all. Source: Hulkbuster on HuD frame on movie [2] Eternaltyro (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. @Tenebrae and TriiipleThreat: your thoughts on this? Maybe we can use Hulkbuster in the plot (right before the note link) and then in the note, remove the part about how it is known as such in the comics, and leave the bit on Veronica? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The wording in the note may need to be changed but I don't think the name is prominent enough to include in the plot and you'd still have to explain what it is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I see the still frame, with HULKBUSTER written mirror-image as if part of a transparent screen in front of Tony's eyes. This, to me, makes it a momentary item not meant to be easily identifiable on first view, but only on still-frame analysis afterward — essentially, an Easter egg. So I would not mention it as part of the main plot, since it was never intended for audience consumption in the manner of the very clear dialog regarding "Veronica" — if Whedon, et al., had wanted to refer to it out loud as Hulkbuster, they would have.

For that reason, my suggestion would be to mention it in one of the background sections — maybe something to the effect of "a momentary image shows Stark, in his armor, reading a screen on which the word HULKBUSTER appears". --Tenebrae (talk)17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, while it's officially called HULKBUSTER, I think Tony always refers to it by its code name Veronica. Below the HULKBUSTER text in his HuD are the words "DEPLOY VERONICA". Eternaltyro (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Codenames to Plot Synopsis

It is confusing for readers to see no mention of the names Captain America, Iron Man, etc in the plot synopsis, The plot section should make 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) 14:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Other than them maybe calling Steve "Cap", they mainly use their actual names when talking to each other. The plot section (and article) are on this film, not on where they came from in the comics. And at this point most of the people going to see this film already know all the names from the previous MCU films, and the others who haven't are going to go off what is heard in the film itself (if they even end up on this article anyway). If people want further confirmation, then they can just look in the cast section below.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Ditto51. It's standard practice at WikiProject:Film to include only the manifest content of a film in a synopsis. If the film doesn't specifically state something, then neither can we. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Vision make up process

Here's a write up on how Vision's make up was created for the film. Maybe something can be added at the end of the pre-production section with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Triiip! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In post production, the makeup was digitally altered and the prosthetics were replaced with CGI. Here are two articles discussing the changes: [3] (throughout) [4] (In the "Envisioning Vision" section).

Maybe this could be included after the pre-production makeup work, or in the post-production section? --P r 616 (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Vision behind-the-scenes source

Something useful on detailing the making of the Vision. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Grey Hulk

VFX supervisor Christopher Townsend's interview with Screen Rant about Grey Hulk in Age of Ultron. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Escaping with the scepter, Ultron uses there resources in Strucker's Sokovia base to build himself a new body and an army of robot drones.

There resources to their resources.

Edit request on October 7, 2015

Within the "Outside North America"-section under the "Reception"-section, the same source (http://deadline.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron-imax-furious-7-international-box-office-china-1201419976/) is cited twice for the same claim (The "The film broke records in many countries, including: opening-day records in Mexico ($6.8 million), the Philippines ($1.6 million) and Indonesia ($900,000);"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Removed. Thanks for the catch. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Black Widow Controversy

Shouldn't there be a section about the whole Black widow debacle?? About how her romance with Bruce Banner was criticized and she was ignored in the toys and Jeremy Renner calling her a slut?? Amanmohd2105 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources, and keep in mind WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Post-Production section

"The film contains 3,000 visual effects shots,[145] completed by ten different visual effects studios, including Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), Trixter, Double Negative, Animal Logic, Framestore, Lola VFX, Territory, Perception, Method Studios, Luma Pictures and The Third Floor."

"Perception" should link to http://www.experienceperception.com . Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3rc3ptor (talk • contribs) 21:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to link. We don't link off site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominating for GA (for real this time)

So I just wanted to clarify per the earlier discussion, that we now have until November 2 (one month after the home media physical release) to nominate the article for GA, in order to keep the Good Topic status for the MCU films. Pinging all users who participated in that discussion to here. @TriiipleThreat, GamerPro64, Juhachi, Adamstom.97, Ditto51, Sock, and SNUGGUMS: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Now would be a good time, the box office section is more complete and there really isn't any new information in the Blu-Ray features.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely better now than when it was in theaters. From a quick glance, I will say that the lead should include what critics liked about it. Home media sales would also be good to add when available. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll nominate it then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived addressed threads

GA Reviewer here -- I've archived some addressed threads.

These were threads that were responded to, marked with "done", and those where there was no actionable issues because users were asking to make changes not backed up to WP:RS sources.

Just did this to better help assess stability and any ongoing issues at present.

— Cirt (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Number of RT reviews needs to be updated

In the article, it mentions 274 reviews, but in Rotten Tomatoes it is currently 284 reviews. However, since the article uses the RT template, I don't know how to change it. Anyone want to give a helping hand?--Jionpedia ✉ 09:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a delay when using the template. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Jionpedia, DinoSlider, Template:Rotten Tomatoes score says, "Template:Rotten Tomatoes score is deprecated. New uses are broken and unsupported. Please use plain text and regular citations instead." Sounds like we need to replace the template with prose. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Its already been corrected.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, I'm confused then. Should the template be used or not? Does it only work sporadically or something? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is currently not running, but Wbm1058 is working on it. I think it is fine here as there aren't that many reviews still coming out for A:AoU but we may want hold off on new uses until things are worked out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the background! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone. The page that displays the text about Rotten Tomatoes' score is Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/2395427. Normally, Theo's Little Bot should create and update that, but you can see from the page's history that it was created by TriiipleThreat, who has also been the primary person keeping it updated. You can continue updating in this manner if you want, or replace it with regular text and citation templates. I don't recommend substituting it because that will copy a bunch of the template's "programming logic" into the article. As discussed at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes score, the bot has not made a positive contribution to a template subpage since April 17, 2014, and any attempts at new uses will just create error messages. The basic problem is that when the bot was developed in 2013, Rotten Tomatoes supported retrieving data from their site by specifying the IMDb ID. Unfortunately, at some point they stopped supporting that, so now the application is broken, and fixing it requires updating the bot's code to support retrieval of the data by some other means. Theopolisme, the bot's operator hasn't edited since August 6.

If you want to see this process resurrected, perhaps you could post a request at WP:Bot requests. I'm afraid I already have too much other stuff on my to-do list to make time for this. My involvement was simply analyzing the problem, cleaning out all the pages with error messages, and deprecating the template. Sorry, but without someone else to pick up the ball, or the operator returning to address the problem, the template will have to stay deprecated for now. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wbm1058, thanks for the update. Would you mind re-posting this on the template's talk page so other editors can know what the latest is? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I just posted a status update there. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

James Spader

I am editing the page of James Spader and would like some feed back on my ideas. If there is any way some one can check out the bottom of his talk page that would be great. --Joshewuh2 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Joshewuh2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshewuh2 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Barton's safehouse"?

Could someone explain to me how this isn't in-universe language and how it would make the slightest bit of sense to someone who hasn't already seen the movie? I know my wording increased the word-count slightly, but ... how about we remove the word "Barton's" and just say "hiding at a safehouse"? That would fix the problem.

Furthermore, TriiipleThreat's edit summary didn't make sense: in-context, "off-the-books" and "secretive" clearly aren't the same thing, so my describing the safehouse as "off-the-books" was entirely appropriate -- they hid out there because, unlike the other "secretive" S.H.I.E.L.D. safehouses, Ultron et al. didn't already know where the off-the-books one that only Barton and Fury knew about was.

@Adamstom.97: @TriiipleThreat:

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, so you're using "off-the-books" to describe a level of secrecy, which makes it redundant. The important thing is that it was secret which is already suggested by the word "safehouse". Besides guidelines state to avoid idioms like "off-the-books". I suppose that I would be okay with "hiding at a safehouse". In the long run, it doesn't matter whose safehouse it was, the outcome would have been the same. However, some level of detail would be nice.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You miss the point -- saying "Barton's safehouse" implies some mention has been made somewhere above that Barton had a safehouse; that, plus my agreeing with you that some level of detail would be nice, was what initially drove me to "a safehouse operated by Barton". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I just had a thought -- what about "a S.H.I.E.L.D. safehouse", and we remove the link to the S.H.I.E.L.D. article a few lines down? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

How does "Barton's safehouse" imply that it has mentioned before? The same wording can be used to introduce the idea that Barton has a safehouse. Also is it clear that it's a SHIELD safehouse? Barton says Fury set it up for him, but that doesn't make it SHIELD's.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A better way of introducing it would be to say "a safehouse operated by Barton". Furthermore, "Barton's safehouse" implies ownership, which is questionable -- "Fury's safehouse" would make more sense than "Barton's safehouse", given that the film states explicitly that Fury set the arrangement up and implicitly that Fury can come and go as he pleases, which would not be the case if Fury gave it to Barton and now it belongs to Barton. You see how this opens up a whole can of worms? The film itself is a primary source and could be read plenty of different ways, and lacking explicit secondary sources we should just be as barebones and non-controversial as possible.

I'm reminded of a similar incident on the MCU wikia where someone had decided based on their original interpretation of the film's dialogue that Ronan's men killed everyone in the Kiln but left the prison itself intact -- something that is not explicitly stated by the dialogue in the film, and is explicitly contradicted by secondary sources such as the official subtitles in at least one foreign language. The proper course there, as here, was to be as barebones as possible so as to avoid the slightest hint of original interpretation.

Hence, "a safehouse".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, technically that last bit was wrong. The MCU wikia is a fan-wiki written in an "in-universe" tone except for special cases. The proper course there was to be as barebones as possible to avoid granting greater weight to fans' original interpretations than to what the films actually stated; the proper course here is ... well, the same. But if we were discussing a hypothetical independent Wikipedia article on the Kiln, then the real-world fact that while Ronan used the ambiguous phrase "cleanse it", other language versions had him explicitly order his men to destroy it, rather than simply slaughter the inhabitants; in this case the only thing we have is in-universe, and not especially interesting to our readers, fan-speculation one way or the other. Hence, "a safehouse". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)