Jump to content

Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Update.

The new trailer was released which surpassed The Dark Knight Rises record. Figured that deserves a mention. ;) http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/avengers-trailer-marvel-chris-hemsworth-samuel-jackson-scarlett-johansson-295980 Jhenderson 777 18:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I may be misreading it but that doesn't seem to be what it is saying. I read that it set the record, then the Dark Knight Rises trailer set the record and now this trailer has come out and the end line of the article is "New record anyone?", so I don't think they actually know that yet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Darkwarriorblake, its too soon to know. Its only been out for about a hour and a half now. The article just recaps the previous records.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Or I was misreading it...I just took a second glance and found that out...but then it was too late to change my comment. lol :b But anyway here's one of the original sources for the trailer that I knew that was coming today. If you can find some extra commentary then you are all set. Jhenderson 777 18:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
http://collider.com/avengers-trailer-itunes-record-2/149781/ 13.7M to TDKR's 12.6, so yes its beaten it sadly :( Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I must have gone psychic with that first comment. If I would bet on that psychic mind of mine I would still think The Dark Knight Rises would be the more higher grossing film though. :b Jhenderson 777 03:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Section About the Video Game

Should there be a section about the video game? Sources such as Game Rant and We Got This Covered have covered information about it, like how it is now cancelled. --WikiEditor44 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that there should be a single sentence about it, but not a whole section. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably it should only have a single sentence about it, but The Dark Knight's video game was cancelled, and its game got developed into a whole entire article.--WikiEditor44 (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how to handle this as there seems to be a fair amount of rumor surrounding this story. The game was never officially announced so their is no official world. The gamerant article traces back to Kotaku which states they do not know the fate of the game and We Got This Covered sites Would You Kindly, who prefaces the whole thing as rumor, with much of their news coming from LinkedIn profiles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the game of Avengers released for Facebook is one of the ways Marvel is promoting the future Avengers movie, some of the elements of the movie are visible, as the use of the Ultimate Nick Fury (the Samuel L. Jackson character) and the current roster of Avengers working under S.H.I.E.L.D. Anyway this could be open to discussion as long as the game also covers characters from current comic rosters (Spiderman and Wolverine) that will not be visible in the movies as well as other Marvel franchise heroes and foes such as the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travsam (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow

She does indeed appear in the movie as shown in the latest Japanese trailer. Her role may be a cameo but I think it's worth making note that she's making an appearance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rong626 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not use trailers as sources of information; they can often be misleading. She may not appear in the final cut of te film. We need a reliable source explicitly stating that she indeed appears.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2012

In section Cast/Scarlett Johansson: "romantic fall" should presumably be "romantic foil" ? 75.36.215.96 (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Marketing Ref

Saw this Variety article about promotional partners that might be of interest for this article. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118052078?refCatId=13 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, good find.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Found you another good one, long spoilery interview with Hiddleston. I found it interesting though I'm not sure which bits may be of use to the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

BBFC runtime

The BBFC has just added a runtime of 143 minutes on its website here. Now the BBFC is used as a source for runtime for Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk (film), Thor (film) and Captain America: The First Avenger, as well as numerous other films. Why should The Avengers be any different? The BBFC is a reliable source when it comes to this sort of info, since the final film needs to be submitted to them in order to receive a rating. Also the BBFC usually cuts film time (due to objectionable content), not add time. Also the source of the 135 minute runtime is from an article from March, in which Joss Whedon was estimating runtime and the film was not yet completed. Nowhere in the article does Whedon state that the runtime is absolute and final.Richiekim (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it unless we have something stating that there is a different cut of the film in the UK.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I know that the minutes are off on the above films compared to the US release. They aren't as off as the old source for this film compared to the new source (which is like by 7 minutes or something), but they are different.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we've had a problem with using BBFC times in the past except when obviously there are cuts made or some kind of reason that a different version was released elsewhere. For instance it is rumored that the non-US version of Prometheus will be R-rated and like 17 minutes longer. This says no cuts were made. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the reviews from The Hollywood Reporter and Variety back up the 143 minute run time from the BBFC.Richiekim (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

UK Title & release date

RESOLVED
U.K. title has been added.
The earliest release date (April 11, 2012) and the release date in the country of origin (May 4, 2012) have been in added in accordance with WP:FILMRELEASE.

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.

The UK title Avengers Assemble and the earlier April release date should be mentioned in the lead and the UK release date should be mentioned in the infobox, as Thor (film) lists the earlier Australian release date and Iron Man 2 and Captain America: The First Avenger lists their Hollywood debuts in the infobox as well. As for the alternate title, other film articles (like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), Arrietty and La Vie en rose (film) to name a few) have alternate titles listed in the lead. Richiekim (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, we do not need list the title of the film in every territory it is released in especially in the lead, where the common name is sufficient. This information is better presented in detail as it currently is in the release section. The same thing happened at Captain America: The First Avenger where it was released simply as The First Avenger in various markets, and we handled it the same way there.
I have been thinking about this; that unlike CA:TFA it seems this only applies to one market and one entry hardly makes a list of indiscriminate information. Still there are many, many different release dates so WP:FILMRELEASE should still apply here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Also per WP:FILMRELEASE, "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings". The UK date is not the earliest release date. Thor (film) and Captain America: The First Avenger both cite the each film's respective first release date, not simply an earlier release date.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then I guess Thor violates this rule, since as far as I can tell, the film was not produced in Australia and yet the earlier Australian release date is listed in the article. Richiekim (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think what TripleThreat is saying is that while the UK date is EARLIER than the US date, it is not yet certain if it is the EARLIEST release date. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
According to IMDB (I know not a reliable source), it is not. We need a RS stating a definite first release, which I am confident will come in due time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Australia has the first release date on April 25. Check out the Australian trailer. At 2:23, it says "April 25 in 3D." --TravisBernard (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
So far it appears Australia, Belgium, France, Italy and New Zealand are all going to be released on the April 25, 2012. We still need a RS stating these are the first release dates. It could be that the film's premiere might pre-date the release in any of these countries.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the UK title, should a redirect not be set up for "Avengers Assemble" / "The Avengers Assemble"? Currently those will both take you to the Avengers(Comics) article. Failing a redirect, perhaps a disambiguation page or a note at the top of the comics article directing people for the film here. No doubt this will become an issue once the film is released in the UK and less informed users not knowing the original film title. 194.66.175.71 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Avengers Assemble brings you to this article Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, just doesnt do that with a "Avengers Assemble" wikipedia search on my google chrome 194.66.175.71 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The redirect was changed on February 28. Since you checked three days later, Google was probably just using an outdated cache. I assume it's fixed by now. Digifiend (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some conflicting reports about the name; for instance Empire says Marvel Avengers Assemble and Forbes says Avengers Assemble.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
As I suspected, the title does seem to be Avengers Assemble, according to The Hollywood Reporter here. My feeling is that this major industry trade magazine, coupled with Forbes, is probably more reliable than Empire, which seemed to be including a Marvel trademark in what it said was the title. We could cite that in a footnote as another interpretation of the title if it seems appropriate, I suppose. The issue appears to have been that the Disney release everyone's working from doesn't seem to actually state the title in prose text. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Scratch that. THR also shows the US teaser posters, which have the Marvel trademark in the same place and "The Avengers" beneath it, and the US movie definitely is not "Marvel The Avengers." Empire clearly mucked it. up. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but I don't think we should completely ignore the Empire reference because it does offer some insight into the rationale behind the name, which they might have been privy to since they did just feature a pretty lengthy story on the film in their print edition. I'll just add the THR citation as back-up.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Would it be more appropriate to say "Also known as Avengers Assemble" in the opening sentence instead of "(titled Avengers Assemble in the United Kingdom)"? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I would say the WP:COMMONNAME is still The Avengers in the UK, so current wording might be more accurate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Okie dokie Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


It is officially "Marvel Avengers Assemble" internationally, not simply "Avengers Assemble" --> http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BFF285236/ I fail to see why TriiipleThreat isn't accepting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizagaox (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Because there are conflicting sources, there is even conflict within the BBC source you're suggesting. Secondly this title does not only apply to the UK. Thank you however for bringing this here, it is worth consideration in further discussion, but is not definitive of anything as you suggested.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I've seen the UK version of the film. It's called "Marvel Avengers Assemble" in the actual film itself and the credits. When the pirated version of the film is up online, I'll post a screengrab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizagaox (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

i think that the earliest release date, wherever it is, sould be showen so that people know the earliest that it's coming out. Toa Aerrow, 4/25/12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Aerrow (talk • contribs) 07:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The earliest release date is shown.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2012 (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.

Dum Dum Dugan?

I read on the Marvel Movie wiki (not saying it as a realiable source) that Dum Dum Dugan was to appear in The Avengers. Considering this could be a rumour, i thought this should be given some looking in to. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:57 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2012

This movie came out April 26th in the uk.

Hiyami (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, assuming you are asking us to include this release date. See WP:FILMRELEASE.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You see, it is notable that most English speaking territories have an American film released before its released in it's home country, but the anally retentive types don't like notable facts. --Plkrtn (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The earliest release was April 11, 2012 as stated in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal commentary from hidden text in the Reception section

Okungnyo (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly shoehorning his personal commentary into the reception section despite the note saying that the Metacritic score is to be hidden until at least 30 reviews are counted. I am posting this discussion here rather than getting involved in an edit war here. Personally, I feel that the personal commentary should be left out of the section. Any comments or objections? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I also frown on Okungnyo's actions and his assumption of bad faith. The reason behind hiding the assessment is because at only 7 reviews Metacritic's current sample size is way too small to accurately reflect general attitudes towards the film. Each review carries far too much weight. The 30 reviews is not an arbitrary number but something that was discussed sometime ago (I can't seem to find it at WT:FILM). Although I believe that number may have been applied to Rotten Tomatoes only. So maybe Okungnyo has point that 30 might be too many but 7 is way too low.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Credits scene

So I take this is going to be another "Cosmic Cube" situation where a small number of anal retentive editors adhere to the letter of Wiki-law so rigorously that the article winds up wilfully denying its readers accurate information, right? - Chris McFeely (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, I do know its a situation where someone put a spoiler in the god damn section header and so it shows up in peoples watch lists ruining it for them. So thrilled you could make your point though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oooerrrugh. Sincerest apologies. Legitimately not my intention. Edited talk page with the same lack of spoiler protection the article itself is currently under. - Chris McFeely (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Chris. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012

At the end of the plot section, when discussing the post-credit scene, it is clear that the villain is Thanos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanos) and so, I believe the final sentance should reflect that.

MettyC (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That is original research. The movie does not state it, and so the only way to know this is through a claim of personal knowledge, which Wikipedia disallows. User:Danratedrko has repeatedly reverted his OR to this effect. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 Not done per Tenebrae. Bmusician 12:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So, by Tenebrae's logic, any uncredited cameo in any movie must be removed, because just because a person (character or actor) can be visually recognised, doing so is counted as personal knowledge, and hence counts as original research? And, even if we uphold that frankly nonsensical notion, despite it appearing very much like wikilawyering to me, then why can't the scene be mentioned and the character described? Insisting on removing even that is just supporting my supposition this is more about US Wikipedians claiming ownership and not wanting stuff put up before they can see it, than actually trying to maintain an accurate encyclopedic entry. 86.150.65.119 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No, don't worry, by the time the film is out in the US, Tenebrae will still be insisting that accurate information not be included in the write-up. After all, anyone who comes to Wikipedia hoping it'll be able to tell them who the unnamed character in the credits scene is, right? I mean, we're only here to provide information, for goodness sake. -31.52.243.92 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. With many fans already seeing the film outside the United States and claiming that it was the character stated above, even if it was an uncredited cameo, it should be added to the plot summary to give information to people who have seen the movie and did not know who it was. 193.61.254.32 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2012

I think Marvel Studios is distributing the film through Walt Disney Pictures and Paramount Pictures is producing it.

86.43.175.136 (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done As cited in the article, Marvel was always the sole production company and had a deal with Paramount to distribute their films. After Disney purchased Marvel they bought the rights to distribute the film from Paramount for $115 million and agreed to give them 8% of the box office and allowed them to retain their name. However, Paramount is no longer affiliated with this film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

- Not true. Paramount is distributing the film internationally. --Plkrtn (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

- Those are distribution rights. Paramount's logo is still at the beginning of the film and on the poster and it clearly states both in the credits and on IMDB that Marvel produced the film in association with Paramount. So while they aren't the distributors, Paramount should be the studio on record with Marvel. SigKauffman (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So I take it you haven't actually read the article then? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate category

As you may or may not know, the respective articles for Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 were recently created. During my editing for the former one, I was confused on whether to add one of the following categories; Category:Disney films or Category:Films distributed by Disney. The first category classifies every film that Walt Disney Pictures owns, produces, finances, markets, and distributes (ex: Pixar films). Whereas, the second category is more inclined to include productions that Disney only handles distribution for (ex: Studio Ghibli films) or does actually own, but under a different film label other than Walt Disney Pictures (ex: DreamWorks films being released by Touchstone Pictures).

Therefore, it brings up the following question: Which category do these three films (and any future ones) fall under? Surely, because of the deal made with Paramount in 2010, The Avengers is solely a Disney-owned film and according to the explanation given above, any film that is owned by Disney, is of course distributed by them, so being that, wouldn't the Disney films category be better suited for categorization? Or does the company's use of the Marvel Studios brand signify the "distribution only" category?

Any comments? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I know quite well, that the The Avengers article has had the "Distributed by" category for some time now, and I'm only bringing up this matter because I would like to have clarity on the definitive use of either category on these three film articles.

Well Marvel the now-subsidiary is producing these films, as far as I'm aware they are Marvel films, distributed and marketed by Disney. Though obviously Disney sees a lot of the profit Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The onscreen credits at the end, for the record, give the production companies as "Marvel Studios in association with Paramount Pictures."
Also, Natasha is formally called the Black Widow once within the movie (in a subtitle, capitalized proper noun), and is "Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow" in the end credits. While Clint Barton is referred to colloquially at one point as "the hawk" (since he's standing around observing SHIELD people below him), he's not called Hawkeye, that I heard — BUT, the end credits give the character as "Clint Barton / Hawkeye." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
For the record, both codenames are also seen on screens displaying their personnel files aboard the Helicarrier. rdfox 76 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Watched the movie yesterday. When will the plot be added? After May 4? (Sorry. I'm not used to editing.) Taposa1 (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2012

I request that the plot section be edited so that readers know that the shadowy figure in the post credits scene is a character from the comics called Thanos

94.168.54.173 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I request that the plot section should be taken down, until the film's Untited States debute.

94.168.54.173 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


NEW EDIT: I would like to contribute the fact that the post credit scene does not state that attacking humans would be an act of suicide... it states that and I quote: "to challenge them is to court death" This does not imply if death is referenced to the fate of the attackers or the people of earth, however considering the nature of the character that smiles (lets face it, it's thanos) as being obsessed with death in the comics, and also immortal... we should assume it would mean death for the people of earth.

So please can we have the plot details section changed from the blatantly wrong information saying attacking the avengers is suicide. Thanks.


I changed it, but I believe that the suicide reference was saying that Thanos would die, but that the Chitauri would die if they tried again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

When the line "to challenge them would be like courting death" was used. I thought it was a reference to the fact of the actual character named "Death" in the Marvel universe that Thanos does end up courting/marrying in the comics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.95.5 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Second post-credit scene

Just a question for anyone else who has seen the movie: how do we mention the second post-credit scene, if at all? You know the one, the obviously Whedon-inspired scene. Just curious, because although it's not as flashy as the mid-credit scene, it's still in there. Anthony (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced that we need too, it doesn't really add to the plot aside anecdotal relief. But I'm sure others might want to include it and seeing that the plot section can still use some clean-up, we can probably find room for it under 700 word limit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

May 12

"The post-credits scene where the Avengers are seen eating shawarma was shot on May 12, 2012", so they shot the scene in the future? 190.235.87.107 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Next Avengers 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.126.137 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambig

Why has the link to the diambig page been removed? When I did a search (in google) for the avengers this page was the page I got, thuIt was not the avengers I was looking for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Google, but searching "The Avengers" in the "search" box to the left takes you directly to the disambig page. Every entry does not need a link to the disambig page if that entry is ambiguated to the point that there is not confusion as to what it is and that the disambig page is the generally searched term.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Paramount Pictures as studio?

I have a quick question: Should we list Paramount PIctures as a studio in the info box if it is necessary or not since the ending credits list "Marvel Studios in association with Paramount Pictures presents"? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Naming the character in the stinger

For starters, can we all stop bickering about this?

The easiest way for those that want to name the character is to provide a source. Either an article from a trusted source (Then the article can be changed to something like "reports to his leader blah blah blah, who has been taken to be the comic book character [NAME] [Trusted source ref]) or something from the film itself. While the character is not named in dialogue, neither is Hawkeye referred to in dialogue but on the basis of the promotional materials and more importantly the end credits the character is named as Hawkeye in the article. If the end credits state [This character's] design/rendering etc. then it would be reasonable for a layman to infer that is the character's name. I didn't watch the credits that closely to definitively say one way or another whether this information is present or not.

I'd also point to Iron Man 2 as a precedent in this matter. Even two years later, and two films showing and naming the implement in question, the plot summary in question still to this day refers to "a large hammer" rather than its usual name.

Until such time as we have a source that states the obvious, leave it alone. For all we know (and as unlikely as it is) it could be Darkseid in the stinger. When there's a trusted source to back it up the argument is over, find one.

And just to state any potential bias, I live in the UK, saw the film on the day of release, so I'm not taking this stance to save myself from the dreaded spoilers. -- Iscariot (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, I don't even object to the actual text of the article not saying "Thanos" but not linking the phrase "their leader" to the Thanos article is immeasurably stupid, just as it is with not linking "Tesseract" to "Cosmic Cube". - 109.152.158.7 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Linking the "Tesseract" to a article about a mundane geometrical shape was even more lame. Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk)
And FWIW, no it could NOT be Darkseid. Darkseid is a DC Comics character, that's a patently ridiculous statement. The only way it could be him would be if someone were looking for a massive lawsuit.SLEPhoto (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Feige, head of Marvel Studios, confirms it's Thanos in this interview: [1]. Take it and do with it what you will. Anthony (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Avengers Assemble

We have all the sourced content we need to show that Disney call the film "Marvel Avengers Assemble" in the UK and Ireland, and Tenebrae is trying to block the sourced, verified references being put in place. This lacks any editorial integrity at all. We have not only the name given to two countries boards of classification, we have multiple sources including the official site for the UK's title and several journalistic references including an article by The Guardian Newspaper discussing the title change. Tenebrae has decided, with all the evidence facing him that this is somehow a mistake made multiple times and is trying to stop the edit by trying to come to some kind of consensus instead of using the facts presented. I haven't seen Winston Churchill's birth certificate, but that is how it was filled out because it is in the database on the UK's national census.

So once again, for clarity, here is the list of sources showing the UK and Ireland film title.

How many more sources do we need before Tenebrae stops breaching WP:OWN? --Plkrtn (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop saying the official site calls it "Marvel Avengers Assemble". It does not. It says "Marvel's Avengers Assemble" on the site itself. You're grasping at straws to claim the SEO code, which has to be written a certain way for search engines, trumps what the studio wrote, consciously and deliberately, on the site itself.
It seems clear to me that what Disney titled the film is not how the BBFC lists it. The BBFC made a change, and the British press mostly goes along with that government source. But the fact that the owner of the film calls it something different can't be blithely dismissed. As one of you two said, this needs an RfC to get wider editorial consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does. The title of the page, inside the tags <title> </title> is Marvel Avengers Assemble. It is the title of the site! It isn't SEO code, its the page title. It has nothing to do with SEO. You're just spouting long words that you think are correct I'm afraid. If that is your only evidence against it, what about the other dozen examples? --Plkrtn (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here it is directly from a search result in Google. What more could you possibly want? --Plkrtn (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, that's HTML coding for SEO. This is not any obscure software-programming thing I'm talking about: It's very basic website design. The "title" of the page is HTML code that does not appear on the page itself. The page itself says "Marvel's Avengers Assemble." Disney wrote that consciously and deliberately on the page itself. If that is not cause for reasonable doubt as to the official title, I don't know what is. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
No it is not. It is the title of the page. The title tag in HTML existed long before the idea of SEO occurred, and SEO is far more than just a title tag. Why take one tiny point and skew it to suit your viewpoint, when even when removing one piece of evidence like that, theres a huge list of the same title being repeatedly used that you're choosing to ignore? --2.221.193.78 (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
So answer this question: Why, in the body of the website itself, it calls the film, repeatedly, "Marvel's Avengers Assemble" (possessive)? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Presumption vs fact. Fact is that the BBFC cannot change the name, unless it objects to the name and then refuses a certificate because of it. The distributor then has to submit an alternate name, the name has to be registered by the distributor. How many times do facts and evidence have to be presented to you? You do not own this article. --Plkrtn (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You're the one assuming or presuming what Disney wrote or said. All we know for a fact is what the BBFC says. Also, it occurred to me on my way to the Hiddleston interview that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the official title of the film is what's onscreen — the actual movie, which the filmmakers created and named — and not what some outside third party calls it.
I know the following has no bearing on Wikipedia as it's OR, but Hiddleston, first, hadn't realized Wikipedia ran the entire plot before the movie opened in the US and was horrified and disappointed by that, and second, while he did not actually use the word "bollocks," he said he never heard of it being called Marvel Avengers Assemble and that at the London premiere, it was just called Avengers Assemble. Again, no bearing on Wikipedia, but I'm pointing this out to show that not everyone takes the BBFC has the official titler of the film.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
No. You're presuming that Disney got it wrong! You've made that clear in previous dialogue. The requirements of the BBFC are that the distributor submits the name, and they submitted it as "Marvel Avengers Assemble". You're presuming the BBFC changed it, or that Disney got it wrong. --2.221.193.78 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not presuming anything. I'm saying that without seeing the filled-out application form, we have no idea what Disney wrote. I'm not guessing at that — other people are. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been pointed out yet but if you look at the BBFC history is shows trailers have been classified by BBFC under the name "The Avengers", "Avengers Assemble" and "Marvel - Avengers Assemble". But more importantly what does the British public call it? When you go to purchase a ticket do you actually say "One for Marvel Avengers Assemble"?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It's been pointed out. The trailers were released before the name change occurred. All trailers released before the name change were under the name "The Avengers" and after it they were listed as "Marvel - Avengers Assemble" or "Marvel Avengers Assemble" furthermore, this is an article for the film which clearly states "Marvel Avengers Assemble". If you look further up I show another example of a similar situation with the film Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists. It was originally called Pirates! Band of Misfits and trailers were released under this name also. --Plkrtn (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
For clarification sake, one does actually say "Avengers Assemble" with no Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It says quite clearly that the film is titled Marvel Avengers Assemble. Not the trailers, not online video content. The film itself, which is what this article is about. Furthermore This BBFC article clearly states "It may also be because the work was submitted to us under another title." - ie the distributor is the one that submits the title to the BBFC. --2.221.193.78 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Producer Kevin Feige says its "Avengers Assemble"

"We thought wouldn't it be nice for our English fans to give them another word. So now you have two words in the title instead of one word. Thats' cool, isn't it? Listen, decisions like that aren't made lightly and there are lots of marketing research, lawyers and things that get into the mix on it. And that determination was made to add that additional word. But the logo is still the "A" , looks cool, and has it altogether. Its still the same movie". Dibdin, Emma (2012-04-19). "'The Avengers' producer Kevin Feige on UK name change". Digital Spy. Retrieved 2012-04-30. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The head of Marvel Studios says the onscreen title is just Avengers Assemble. To quote one other editor a few posts above, "What more could you possibly want?" --Tenebrae (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Feige's comments should be added to the article?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. And again, I offer a compromise solution that addresses all these issues. Please remember: In a compromise, no one gets everything they want, but everyone gets the minimum they need to feel that something is accurate. Compromise is an important part of Wikipedia debate:
First, as it's a US movie, the lead only requires the US title. We generally put international titles in the "Distribution" / "Release" section. Second, we say in that section, "In the UK, the BBFC gives the title as Marvel Avengers Assemble." We can also have the Feige quote. That way there's no arguing about the various titles as they appear in different newspapers, or about the fact the official site gives yet a different title. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that, hopefully others will be too.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
No. I'm not OK with it. The title in the UK and Ireland amongst others is 'Marvel Avengers Assemble'. I don't care how you try to paint it. That is the title, and there is plenty of evidence to back that. According to Feige, the title of the film is "Avengers" if you are going by what he says, unless "The" suddenly isn't a word. It isn't about compromise here, it is about presenting the actual facts, which have been evidenced time and time again but continually ignored by group of users who are trying to claim ownership of this article. Present the facts as they ARE, not how you would like to see them. There is a plethora of evidence to say that the film is officially titled 'Marvel Avengers Assemble' so why ignore it?
Futhermore the suggestion that the country of origin is the only title carried on movie articles is absolute nonsense. Encino Man, The Boat That Rocked, Fast Five, The first Harry Potter film , Live Free or Die Hard are all examples of UK and US films retitled in US and UK markets respectively, and noted on the article. --2.221.193.78 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
We are going by what he says and it's obvious he isn't counting "The".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Which was also clearly a joke. The evidence is there that is plainly clear. The UK and Ireland title is Marvel Avengers Assemble, whether you like that or not. --2.221.193.78 (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Another article by BBC News. Here is the link which clearly states : "The Avengers was released in the UK under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble." and also talks about Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists also have an alternate title in the US --2.221.193.78 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
So you do recognize that Feige does not include Marvel as part of the title. Also it is very unclear which is why we are having this conversation, even amongst some of sources posted above including but not limited to The Guardian, Daily Mirror, OK!, Daily Mail, Belfast Telegraph, Coventry Telegraph and the Times of India.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, the Irish site Movies.ie [2] --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Response to 2.221.193.78: We've established that the BBFC calls it that, and British publications have mostly taken suit. But the title of the film is only what the filmmaker (in this case rights-holder Disney) says it is, onscreen. Wikipedia guidelies are pretty clear that the title of the movie is solely what is onscreen. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The on screen name, three times, is Marvel Avengers Assemble. The BBFC certificate, the title card after the opening scene and the final credit name. All of them quite clearly say "Marvel Avengers Assemble". --Plkrtn (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I've solved this entire argument by using precise language. The words "title" or "called" are a bit open to interpretation. But "released as" is not and it has undeniably been released as "Marvel Avengers Assemble" (the BBFC site is clear on this) while being marketed under several different names.

The only problem is, while now totally accurate, the lead's a bit clumsy.

Some suggestions for a better solution to the lead would be to simply stick with "released as MAA" and leave the rest to the body of the article; or say something like "usually referred to as Avengers Assemble" in the lead and put the actual release title in the body of the article. At the least, I think the "Marvel's" variation can be dropped from the lead: that's probably just an error on the part of some website designer! GDallimore (Talk) 02:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If we are all in agreement that the BBFC uses "Marvel Avengers Assemble" and are intent on using it as a source, I believe the more neutral and accurate word is "classified" as that is what the BBFC does.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the contentious line out of the lead and put it in the Release section, where it properly belongs: We don't have to give every movie's various international titles in the lead. As well, given that Disney UK's own website calls it something different — which the Marvel Avengers Assemble partisans continue to refuse to address — we can only say what the BBFC classifies it as Marvel Avengers Assemble since DISNEY calls it something else.
Secondly, I found a dishonest citation claiming a it was being called Marvel Avengers Assemble when the article did NOT say that. This is the Hollywood Reporter article here. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a failure to understand the importance of classification under British law and to appreciate the legal effect that it has on licensed showing of a film. This isn't surprising since it's not entirely straightforward! But there are a couple of key points, one enshrined in law, one in the guidelines of the BBFC.

Legally, a classified work must be assigned a title under which it was determined to be suitable for the issue of a classification certificate. [3]

Under the guidelines, a title is submitted with the request for classification and there is a check of the title as shown onscreen against the title as submitted. If these are different the work will not be classified until this is resolved. [4]

So, the title identified by the BBFC is the one submitted (by Buena Vista in this case) and is the same as used in the film and has legal force. Disney can, as Tenebrae says, call the film whatever they want in their marketing efforts, but for the purposes of classification so that the film can be released to and shown in licenced premises (ie cinemas)[5] the title is legally "Marvel Avengers Assemble".

Also, since the BBFC have both a legal and professional duty of care to get this information right, they can be trusted as a reliable source for the licenced title of the film in the UK. The film cannot be released to cinemas under any other title in the UK or those cinemas would be breaching their licence by showing it.

Similar provisions will apply to the Irish classification body. GDallimore (Talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is all good info and I'm almost inclined to agree with you but wonder if "classified under the title" is still better for the sake of specificity.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly I, and I'm sure all the other editors here, appreciate GDallimore's efforts and calm explanation. Perhaps we have semantic differences, and we're all trying to overcome them.
Some thoughts: Link 3 above goes to "Video Recordings Act 1984," so I'm not sure how that applies to theatrical features. Link 4, to "How to get a theatrical work classified," is silent on the issue of the work's title, so though well-intentioned it's not providing pertinent information. While one might assume the BBFC will give it the title under which the copyright holder fills out the form, that's still an assumption; one could equally assume that no matter what one writes on a form, the BBFC is going to classify it under whatever title is sees on the screen, even if that includes a branding logo. This would certainly explain why Disney calls it "Marvel's Avengers Assemble" and the BBFC calls it "Marvel Avengers Assemble."
We simply do not know which of these two assumptions is correct. I suspect the latter is, since Disney's US press materials refer to the film as "Marvel's The Avengers" (and onscreen, the US version, like the UK version, has only the Marvel branding logo above The Avengers and no apostrophe-s). It isn't credible that Disney would call the films "Marvel's Avengers Assemble" and "Marvel's The Avengers" everywhere except for the BBFC/IFCO.
And in looking over that BBFC page again, I see my assumption is correct: The submitted title is not necessarily the title the BBFC files it as: "The final check of the title as shown onscreen is made against the title as submitted. If these are different the work will not be finally classified until this is resolved."
What does "resolved" mean? I can think of a number of answers, one of which is Disney saying, "You can call it whatever you want for bureaucratic purposes but that doesn't change the film's title as it is copyrighted under the Berne Convention, of which your country is a signatory."
Just for clarity, I didn't actually say "Disney can . . . call the film whatever they want in their marketing efforts." I said the rights-holder is the only one who can name a film. I'm an author: I name my books. And if a censorship board files it under a different name, they're not retitling my book. No one can title something except the person who created it.
The BBFC classifies films. That's all it has the power to do. It does not have the power to take a work away from its author and give it a new name. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


WDSMP UK registered a film with the BBFC called Marvel Avengers Assemble for certification, it duly passed without edits and was thus released and is the only film the members of GB & RoI are currently enjoying which star Thor, Iron Man et al. The BBFC didn't decide the name, otherwise you'd think Marvel, Disney and Paramount just for the hell of it would get a little bit annoyed that some men sitting around the table are making creative decisions. Like you say they don't have the power to give a new name so why do you keep suggesting for the first time in 100 years of the BBFC that they have?

Disney may call the film what ever the hell they like now, but it's irrelevant, the film was Marvel Avengers Assemble at classification and the only way to change it is to get it reclassified and there is little point in getting het up about it until they do. The name at classification is the name that has to stick.

It's just like Chinese whispers, the film has one name, it started with one name and by the time everyone has found out about it has suddenly grown by 27,005 names with Barack Obama playing Iron Man, Sarkozy playing Thor and Princes Diana as Black Widow. The one source that's at the beginning of it all is the only one that matters, the others are mainly confusing the subject. Narom (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point we're so close with the "classified/released thing", it might just be better to go with "released" just to keep the article stable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to find more neutral wording, such as "According to the BBFC / IFCO" &mdsh; b Because we don't know what Disney submitted, unless Narom has a link to the original application form. And we can't just pretend that the film doesn't have a copyright title — which, if what Disney is saying everywhere else is true, is "Marvel's Avengers Assemble" and not "Marvel Avengers Assemble." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. The BBFC declare that the title is provided by the distributor, and the title on the database in the UK, Ireland and the title used in the official UK Box Office Top 10 list as provided by the BFI (who
RE:"Like you say they don't have the power to give a new name so why do you keep suggesting for the first time in 100 years of the BBFC that they have?" Not what I'm saying. Im saying the BBFC's own website says films have sometimes submitted with a different title than what the BBFC believes is onscreen, and that the difference has to be resolved. The BBFC itself is saying that what it calls the film and what filmmakers officially call their film can be two different things. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You are deliberately misinterpreting what the BBFC website says. The BBFC itself says that what they call the film is provided by the distributor of the movie. Films may be known under other titles, which will not appear on their database because all the BBFC will list is the official UK title as the distributors is fine. For example, someone may know Mel Gibson's latest film as Get the Gringo, but that won't be listed on the BBFC database, as it's UK title is "How I Spent My Summer Vacation".
Your ability to twist the facts to try and suit your own agenda regardless of facts is genuinely amazing. Have you ever thought of going into politics? --Plkrtn (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the debate over the UK title is a bit overwrought, and the overemphasis in this article is not needed. Numerous American articles vary the film title from "The Avengers" to "Marvel's The Avengers". In fact, if you go to the MPAA's film ratings website, it is referred to as "Marvel's The Avengers". Should we then change the name of this article to "Marvel's The Avengers" because that is the title Disney submitted to the MPAA for classification? Richiekim (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The difference is, in the US you can technically release a film with MPAA certification. No cinema will carry it, but you can. In the UK and Ireland the title is a legal requirement, and it is the title that is provided by the distributor. If we are making reference to the fact that the name changes in other English language juristictions, which is entirely appropriate considering that Wikipedia is not purely for American users, then we should use that legally enforced title that should by UK law be used by every cinema when advertising their showings and times. --Plkrtn (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Going back to some of Tenebrae's comments above, yes, the video recordings act is to do with video, but the licensing act I link to specifies that the video recording act is the relevant act for its purposes. Also, Tenebrae appears to overestimate the powers of the BBFC. They cannot and do not retitle films (they are not a "censorship body"). Only the person submitting it for classification can, although perhaps at the direct request of the BBFC if the BBFC says it cannot be classified otherwise. If the BBFC says that's the title, then that's the title submitted by Buena Vista, no question. Legally, that is then the title for licensing purposes (ie release to cinemas) in the UK.

As for the issue of the US title. No, the article title should not be changed to "Marvel's The Avengers", since "The Avengers" is the WP:Common name. But serious thought should be given to whether the first line of the article should give the correct, legal title. Compare, for example United Kingdom. GDallimore (Talk) 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the common-name policy, and also that we may need to explain that copyrighted title in the lead somehow. Oy, why is nothing about this movie simple!
To clear up what I think is a misunderstanding: You say, "Tenebrae appears to overestimate the powers of the BBFC. They cannot and do not retitle films." I actually said exactly that at 13:47, 3 May 2012: "The BBFC cannot title or retitle a film. Only the author of a film can title it." So we're in agreement there, too.
But it's an assumption — one that seems proven incorrect by the BBFC's own words — to say that the title on the submission form is the same as what the BBFC files it as — because the BBFC says, ""The final check of the title as shown onscreen is made against the title as submitted. If these are different the work will not be finally classified until this is resolved." That means submitters don't always put the same title on the form that the BBC believes the onscreen graphical treatment says.
Now, what does "resolved" mean? I can think of a number of answers, one of which is Disney saying, "You can call it whatever you want for bureaucratic purposes but that doesn't change the film's title as it is copyrighted under the Berne Convention, of which your country is a signatory." --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
What? Copyright is automatic. You don't "copyright something under a title". Nothing you've just said makes any sense. Certainly not under UK law. You say "the BBFC have no power to change a title", then in the same breath suggest that the BBFC have changed the title. They can't, only Buena Vista could have agreed to a change in title and that title has legal effect in the UK as title under which the film is released for showing in UK licensed cinemas. GDallimore (Talk) 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Which is why my version of the article correctly states "released", not titled and certainly not called, which could refer to what it is commonly called which, in the UK, is still The Avengers! :) GDallimore (Talk) 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I have to say, with all due respect, I've written several books, and for every one of them, my publisher filed for copyright. There was nothing automatic about it. To be precise, they filed for copyright registration, as opposed to copyright, but whether the title was on the registration form or on my book cover, it's the same title I gave it.
Going into your discussion of law, and i'm presuming we're both laymen here and not attorneys: Something can have legal effect in one arena and no effect in another. I could give examples, but you're an articulate and intelligent individual, I gather from the general tone of your writing, so I'm sure you understand what I mean. The BBFC classifies a film in its files under what it feels the onscreen title is. Does that mean Buena Vista / Disney will get fined if they advertise their film as "Avengers Assemble," or as "Marvel's Avengers Assemble"? Will theater owners be fined if they put "Avengers Assemble" on their marquee? What something is called for bureaucratic purposes is one thing; what the author titles it and what it's copyrighted under is the official title.
Right now, the lead of the article says "Marvel Avengers Assemble" even though the author of the film calls it Marvel's Avengers Assemble. I think those of who point to what the author says, and want to call it Marvel's Avengers Assemble in the opening, have compromised. I think "classified" is the most accurate non-partisan word. If you're saying you absolutely refuse to compromise and only want your way or nothing, I guess we'll try and proceed from there. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm a UK patent attorney and have had many many conversations with confused (UK) authors who thought they needed to or even could register their copyright. I understand there's still some sort of optional registration system in the US, but it simply does not exist in the UK[6] and is certainly not in the Berne Convention. It's a US peculiarity, not an international requirement, and I'd even go as far as to suggest that your publisher is wasting either your or their money but I'm not an expert on US law. Nevertheless, I'm reminded of this cartoon.
The writer of the website is not the author of the film. The writer of the website is some marketing bloke and the Guardian (a reliable secondary source) says it's a mistake in the production notes that the word "Marvel's" is used. Presumably, they must have seen the "correct" title somewhere else. It's also the only reliable source to discuss the nature of the title at length so is the most important one as far as I'm concerned for resolving the contradictory information. I quote from that source "It's the release of a film called Marvel Avengers Assemble".
By the way, did you spot that the film's official UK Facebook page uses identical promotional text to the website but changes Marvel's to Marvel? The "authors" are not being consistent in the slightest in their marketing efforts at to what their film is called, which is the essence of the release section I wrote and seems to be acceptable to everyone. What also appears to be acceptable to everyone is that the lead should not list all the various titles the film is known by. My proposal is the correct, legal title for release of the film in the UK Ireland is the best one to use.
Also, the "cover" of the film (ie the opening or end credits) must use the same title as on the BBFC website since that's the basis on which the title is approved (not assigned, but approved) so the authors of the film have definitely put that title on their actual film.
The reason I argue this point is that the word "classified" fails to impress the legal effect of said classification on a lay reader. This is why it is important to go further than classified to "released", which does directly suggest that legal consequence.
I'll finish this comment by anticipating a possible future argument from you: my saying all of the above is arguably synthesis (unlike the example you give below! :) ). You could argue that my points are being made on the basis of the BBFC website and my knowledge of licensing laws. See what I'm doing there? I'm apparently synthesising two pieces of information within the article myself. However, it's not actually impermissible synthesis because of the available reliable secondary sources that say the film is called MAA, particularly the Guardian article which itself identifies and comments on the contradiction in the marketing efforts and specifies MAA as being the title under which the film has been released. I'm now going to add the Guardian source to the lead to avoid that argument.
Oh, one last thing: the major cinema chains appear to be breaching their licenses by advertising the film under the "wrong" title! Don't know what to make of that. It may depend on what they call it at the actual physical location rather than on the website. Also, since a registration number is legally required as part of the title (note, I'm not calling for that to be included!), they can probably get away with a minor variation in the title. GDallimore (Talk) 10:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

On teapots...

I've gotten a couple of pings on this at my talk page.. and looking at the two related threads it a wonder thorny knot going on, if a little over blown.

I'm going to try and get a handle on what is being presented since it's a little hard to follow in places:

  • There is a statement that The Avengers is the common name used in referencing the film in most media.
  • The film has been referred to under the titles Marvel's Avengers, Marvel Avengers, Avengers Assemble, Marvel's Avengers Assemble, and Marvel Avengers Assemble for release outside of the US or North America.
  • The last is what the film is currently listed under by the UK film certification agency.
  • There has been argument over whether the "Marvel" block is used as part of the on film title or not.

Looking at the back and forth here on the talk page, actions on the article itself, and the current state of the article - [7] - this is what I'm seeing:

  • COMMON would hold for the article title and holding the article in a US framing.
  • The lead seems good. The only suggestion I'd make is to change the parenthetical to "listed by the film certification boards of UK and Ireland under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble" to avoid arguments about miss-using "classified".
  • The release section does a good job of laying out the name issue in detail.
  • Editing in lieu or in spite of this discussion should not be going on. Period. Right now the consensus seems to support the current material, so removing the contentious sections - an option if this were a rapid or large point of edit warring - does not seem like a necessity.
  • If there is a need to work on the sections, and considering that it is contentious, discussion of the change(s) and reaching a consensus should happen first. It may take time, but we don't have a deadline for this.
  • Also, remember that Wikipedia aims for verifiability, which may not be the "truth".

- J Greb (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You missed one: "Marvel's The Avengers", which someone suggested is the official title in the US, if not the common name.
"listed by the film certification boards of UK and Ireland under the name Marvel Avengers Assemble" is even more wordy that then current wordy language when "released as" is accurate, succint and supported by the Guardian source which has recently been removed from the lead without explanation. GDallimore (Talk) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I did that. I replaced it with the IFCO source because the Irish claim was unsourced. That along with the BBFC citation, fully support what is currently worded in the lead, no additional sourcing is needed there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm leery of getting in the middle of this, so I'll just say this: I don't really see the reason to have the film's foreign title in the opening sentence. We don't do it for Captain America: The First Avenger, which is just The First Avenger in some other countries. U.S. films have different titles in other countries all the time. Why are we making an exception here? --Farpointer (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the English language wikipedia and this is a title change in a couple of not-insignificant English speaking countries which has received a fair bit of attention/discussion in secondary sources. GDallimore (Talk) 23:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Marvel's The Avengers

I don't want to add to the confusion, but I've noticed that many high-profile websites – mainly American ones – seem to be under the impression that the title of the film is Marvel's The Avengers. Examples include iTunes, Wall Street Journal, Variety, Box Office Mojo, IMAX, The Trades, Deadline, Yahoo, Rotten Tomatoes, Boxoffice and Coming Soon. These are only the results that I found on the first couple of pages of a Google search – the actual number of instances is much higher.

Is this title prevalent enough to be mentioned somewhere in the article? Flax5 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And add Newsday's article to the list. The production notes also all say Marvel's The Avengers, and that's how the movie is copyrighted. Likewise, It's clearly Marvel's Avengers Assemble in the UK, according to Disney. The BBFC, in being overly literal, recorded the title incorrectly. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Once again, the BBFC CANNOT record the title. It is the distributor... Seriously. How many times do you need to be told? --2.221.193.78 (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Image

Basic graphic design is not to have images look off the page. Complying with the license for the Whedon image, and in consultation with a second editor, Bignole, the Whedon image now faces right. We're both assuming this is a non-controversial cosmetic change. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What does off the page mean? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It means that their eyes are facing away from the text, Dark. Are we planning on changing the cast image as well?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Wish I could figure out a way how. This image has text in the background, plus people's hands, so flipping it wouldn't work. And with the bullets on the left, we can't place the picture on the left. It just may be one of those things we have to live with. Anyone have suggestions? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The text part I understand, but I guess I don't get what people's hands have to do with flipping the image. I mean, I understand that doing so makes it appear that their right hand is actually their left hand, but since a thumbs up by either hand is hardly an issue....I'm lost as to how hands create a problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
In a small picture, you're probably right about the hands. But the text thing seems insurmountable. Sometimes we just have to live with an imperfect solution, I guess, and just fix the things we can. I swear, I've never been to A.A. — I just sound like it! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I was just thinking that most of the text, if we really wanted, could be cropped out from the sides so that only a small section of text from the background is visible. By small section, I mean a couple of "CO"s from the word "CON". Just a thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't substituting a new picture be better than editing the current one? Plenty of photographs were taken when the cast came onstage at Comic-Con; there's a good one here that shows them facing towards the camera (and a little to the left). —Flax5 19:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
That's actually a really good idea — wish I'd thought of it — though that particular image you link to can't be used since it's at a copyrighted site. We'd have to find an editor who took his or her own picture, or a Flickr or Tumblr image that somehow will allow to be used under a Creative Commons license.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis

I think the plot synopsis should be held off until the film's official US release. It's no fun when fans accidentally come across stuff they didn't want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.199.219 (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.25.241 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Essentially what you are saying is that you want to censor information until a time when it is convenient for a select group of people. The English WP is an international site and the film has already been released in many countries, there is no reason to withhold synopsis information.Redredryder (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:SPOILERS is pretty clear on this:
Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.
and
It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section).
We cannot remove information from the article simply because it might spoil the film for some. People familiar with Wikipedia should know that most pages on major films contain details of the story, so they should know what they're getting into when they visit this page. Furthermore, scrolling down on the page reveals that the plot section has a fair bit of text in it. This implies that details of the plot are outlined, so anyone wanting to avoid spoilers should just hit 'page down'. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to protect fans from learning the story of the film in advnace. And, as WP:SPOILERS outlines, doing so is not acceptable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It says in the plot that the helicarrier lands on the surface of the water, it doesn't, tony and cap rebuild and restart all of the broken turbines and the carrier resumes FLIGHT. just saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.45.98 (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

True, the guys right — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaMMyDx (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Removed. Even if it were there, it would be tangential to subsequent plot events. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with having the plot removed at least after the international date, it should be made clear that the Avengers debuts in Japan in August 2012. So, what about the Japanese??. However, we can't have an empty plot for the film until August, so I think its fine now. Since I haven't watched it yet, I can't substantiate any of the plot claims. But, I will watch it this weekend and hopefully if I have time I will go over the plot details.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Having seen it, I can vouch for the plot points here, but there's always going to be polishing needed and nuances added. And I, for one, am an admirer of your work — you and User:Spinc5 are our box-office gurus! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, your work is also exceptional and one of a kind. After working and looking at many articles, your contributions to many film articles have been highly effective and valuable. Collaboration is a crucial facet of wikipedia that only a few wikipedians succed at and you have. Although a bit off topic, but I must ask--was the film as good as many people say? Best Regards, --Eddyghazaley (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was absolutely great. I'm going to pay to see it a second time, after seeing it at a press screening. And thank you for the kind words; I'm a journalist by profession, so I hope I help set a good example. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I never knew you were a journalist, you kind of gave me a different vibe but it's nice to know. I saw it in 3D; it was terrific with exceptional special effects and cinematography. Coincidentally, I also want to watch it again. From what I am seeing, The Avengers is well poised to gross above $1 billion globally. But before hoping for a billion dollar plus gross, I think we have to wait and see how well The Avengers does in China. By the way, isn't it quite difficult to keep up with your work and wikipedia? You truly are devoted to wikipedia--another unique trait you have. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I work at home, so it's not terribly difficult to pop in for a few minutes to relax in-between assignments or when I just need a break. And since I use Wikipedia as a starting point for footnoted sources, I often find myself having to edit articles about actors or other subjects I'm writing about because so much material is often uncited or rumor/gossip or just plain inaccurate. I can't speak for others in my profession, but for me, it's really hard to see an encyclopedia entry containing errors or unsubstantiated information. I jokingly call it my pro bono work! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception

This is a question - what gives Metacritic precedent over Rotten Tomatoes when it comes to the appraisal of critical reaction up top? Metacritic has only 40 units of input total, including amateur critics, while Rotten Tomatoes has given the film a 93% overall, and an 85% from the 41 "Top Critics," from reputable news sources (which negates the views of amateur critics that Metacritic does not), and an average score of 8.0/10, all of which denote that the film received much a much greater response than just the lukewarm "generally favorable" that we have given it . . . I realize the "generally favorable" is a cited term from the Metacritic website, but for all intensive purposes the reaction has been much more positive than "generally". At least a "highly" I think would be in order - lets use some kind of amalgamated sense of the critical reaction rather than blindly copying verbatim what just one site claims - even if that site is Metacritic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendragonrah (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Would that be your own interpretation of RT's score? The only claim we can attribute to RT is "rotten", "fresh" or its exact score.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
If this is the standard by which we measure every movie than there needs to be a gross overhaul of other movie pages. The Iron Man page says "Reviews were very positive," with the only citation for that being the Rotten Tomatoes page. Isn't that a subjective interpretation? All Thor says is that it became a financial and critical success, without any citation whatsoever. These are only a few examples, I'm fine with them - they reasonably extrapolate from a few given statistics (say, Rotten Tomatoes as well as Metacritic as well as a general overview of reviews). Why don't we quote Metacritic for every single movie, because apparently any deviation is taboo? -- Pendragonrah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC).
I was speaking facetiously about rotten and fresh ratings which are negative and positive attributions. The problem is with the adverb you wish to place in front of it. At what point does a score become highly positive? This is why Wikipedia maintains the policy that all information must be verifiable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is this worth mentioning? Samuel L. Jackson calls for the sacking of a reviewer who is evidently terrible at his job. :D Alientraveller (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No. "Actor hates reviewer who gave him bad review"? Dog bites man. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Post(and mid)-credit scenes, compromise, wording

I don't understand the big deal here... From either side. Couldn't this be easily solved with the appropriate wording? Something like: "blahblahblah...A mid-credit scene featured "the other's" superior, a character recognizable to Marvel Comics readers as Thanos, but not explicitly identified by that name within the movie...blahblahblah" would seem to work. On the other hand, I don't believe a sentence like that belongs in the "plot" section either. Which leads me to my second point/question.

Since all of the marvel cinematic universe movies have used post credit scenes specifically to promote the larger shared universe, wouldn't it make sense to include "post-credit scene" section/sub-section after the "plot" sections on each of these pages? It would seem to be a way to convey the information in a neutral POV, and wouldn't be as unwieldy as relegating it to "footnote purgatory"

Thoughts? Shoeless Ho (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it should still be contained within the plot, as it is still an important part even though about 30 seconds that will eventually lead into future sequels, just how the scenes in the previous five films have had some reference to Thor or Captain America or The Avengers. And as the character even though wasn't directed said on screen, but was confirmed to be Thanos, then it should be mentioned. But for the wording, I think it should just explain what happens. The second post-credits scene in the movie isn't greatly relevant and I can understand if that has to go and not be included. But it seems that this 'post-credits scene' is being taken more serious than it actually should be. It should just be practically a single sentence. It's not going to add much to the word count so if (I'm not saying there is) but if there is any worry for the word count, it shouldn't really be relevant here.
But that's just my thoughts. Anyone else? Charlr6 (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not appropriate for us to introduce new information into a plot just because we "know" something to be true. The film does not identify him. A producer does, which is why I believe that the footnote is appropriate, as it does explicitely state that Thanos is in the film. There definitely shouldn't be a "Post-credits" section. Why would you create a section for what amounts to about 1 sentence worth of information?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind a footnote with a link to the producer confirmed that it was Thanos. I don't think there should be a new section like you said. I would be happy like I said if the second post-credit scene goes, but I believe in the future that someone would put it back in. I think that the post-credits scene should be in the plot, and like I said I don't mind there being a footnote. Even though the film does not identify the character though, well in the end of Iron Man, I don't remember when Nick Fury appears that it is directed said on screen that it is Nick Fury, we just assume and then later its confirmed. Charlr6 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a really good point about Nick Fury in the movie Iron Man. That deserves another look. Good catch! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
In Iron Man, after the credits, he directly states that he is "Nick Fury, director of S.H.I.E.L.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.240.135 (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Post-credits restaurant scene - wording

I have a problem with the current wording: "In a second post-credits scene, the Avengers — gathered at a shawarma restaurant — eat in silence." Specifically, the "eating in silence" part, which, to me, gives away the punchline and reads as a spoiler. As another editor pointed out, Wikipedia isn't obligated to avoid spoilers, but at the same time there was a huge discussion on here about whether or not to include a description of Thanos directly in the plot summary (for different reasons, but that, too, serves as a spoiler). Perhaps it's just a small thing, but I'd like to change the sentence to "In a second post-credits scene, the Avengers eat together at a shawarma restaurant." Thoughts? Is it even necessary to mention it's a schawarma restaurant, which also gives away the punchline? Esprix (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I like this wording but its not really a big deal. Flax5 however, is right about WP:SPOILER. The Thanos thing is different because its not about spoiling the plot, but rather being completely accurate about what happens on screen free from outside knowledge.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Typo in Production - Development section

The second paragraph states "Cheade rebuked such statements in an interview with...". Cheade should be Cheadle. 169.228.151.152 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ferrigno voicing Hulk?

OK, I just saw the movie. Lou Ferrigno is not in the credits and it didn't sound like Lou. The two sources given in the article have Lou saying that he would (in the future) do the voice. But do we know for sure that he did, or was it in the plans, but the plans were changed? --Musdan77 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ferrigno has confirmed (via Twitter) that his voice was used in the film. [8] —Flax5 15:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the link. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot

Watched the movie yesterday. When will the plot be added? After May 4? (Sorry. I'm not used to editing.) (watched at Philippines.) Taposa1 (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be kept off English Wikipedia until the American release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.200 (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think that's likely, or we'd have been waiting for over a year for the plot of The Descent to go up based on the UK/US release dates. Also, there was no reciprocity with Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, a British film that had an earlier US release date and had a plot summary up before the UK release date.
In an unrelated matter, the released print in the UK clearly gives the UK title as Marvel Avengers Assemble rather than simply Avengers Assemble. As the BBFC have rated the release print with this title it has to be the official title within the United Kingdom or the distributor is committing an offence, just as if they started adding a sex scene after the film was classified. -- Iscariot (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, anyone thinking about posting a plot prior to the May 4 release should probably join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#When to post plot. -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I see on that discussion you argue it might be considered a copyright violation by the film company if the plot gets posted before the film is released in the US, even though that's not stopped US Wikipedians from happily posting plot points for British films that aired in the US first (as Iscariot mentions above). So to me this is simply a case of US-Wikipedians being biased - it's fine for them to post what might be spoilers for people in other countries, but not the other way round. I've got no problem with Wikipedia taking a stand on posting or not posting spoilers either way, but you can't change the rules when they don't suit your own country. 86.181.52.2 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more jerkwads of any nationality who enjoy spoiling the film for others. People did it to me for Scream 4 on a related article but not the Scream 4 article because they just HAD to share with the world who the killer(s) were/was 2 days before it's release, and people keep doing it on this talk page. Moral of the story? Some people are just awful people. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, going out of your way to spoil a film is a jerk move - and if that's what I was advocating, then I could have put the plot points here on the talk page, which isn't protected. My point is simply that I find it massively hypocritical of certain individuals on this site to insist on protecting pages because it's a film not yet released in the US, which means they haven't seen it yet and so don't want to risk someone from outside the US spoiling the movie for them, and then those same individuals happily tell anyone who decries US Wikipedians gleefully posting entire movie plots blow-by-blow prior to international release that Wikipedia has a policy of not worrying about posting spoilers. Sauce for the goose. Either you let people post as soon as the film gets released in any territory, or you put in place a general ban on posting any detailed plot until a certain length of time after release. Truth be told, Wikipedia has no cause to post detailed plot breakdowns on any movie, no matter how long it has been out. 86.181.52.2 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree with everyone in certain measures here. The notion of plot and 'spoilers' is actually treated differently with certain projects of Wikipedia, without generalising it does tend to be certain cliques of US based editors that wikilawyer until they don't get spoilers, see the Pro-Wrestling project for an example. As per the link Tenebrae posted to the discussion at Talk: MOS, it's noted (correctly) that the spoiler tag was deleted for a reason. Given the film is out, and is therefore an available source to be referenced, I could post a plot summary with certain points that could be considered spoilers for someone who hadn't seen it.
I'd note at this point (without mentioning specifics) that when clarifying a couple of things for writing my review of the movie, I saw that there were major spoilers on certain pages of this wiki relating to the movie. The spoilers are not only 'out there' on the internet, but here in this encyclopaedia. Given you can't police an entire wiki for spoilers, especially if you don't know what you're looking for, it's pointless to avoid making this article all it should be.
The ultimate question comes down not to if, but when certain plot points should go into a wiki article. If some editors want a US release date for their own benefit I'd point out my example above of Neil Marshall's The Descent, which was released in the US over a year after its UK release date, and with a re-edited happy ending. Should the English language Wikipedia cripple itself until certain audiences get a release? Should there be a waiting period after that? Should we remove the twists from the Se7en and Sixth Sense articles in case some people haven't seen them? How long do we define as a 'fair chance' to see the film/TV show/read the book in question? Or do we just create articles based on the information that is available? Which means UK (and a few other countries I believe) editors should be creating a plot summary to improve this article as per the basic mandate of this project. -- Iscariot (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
All good points, and if US editors have acted self-centeredly with films not yet opened in Britain, that's a legitimate issue. The one thing I've brought up at the WP:FILM discussion linked above is a more practical consideration: If Wikipedia makes a habit of giving away plots of Hollywood films before they open in the US, the film industry is going to launch a massive campaign against Wikipedia and Wikipedians painting us as copyright violators and interfering with their commerce. Whether the film industry would have a legal leg to stand on is beside the point: Do we really need to stir up that kind of trouble, and surely subject the Wikipedia Foundation to nuisance lawsuits by the big studios? Whatever consensus says, I'll obviously abide by, but speaking personally, I'm not sure the value, if any, of posting a synopsis a fews before a film comes out is worth it compared to the potential downside. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE take down the detailed plot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.200 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if we were to remove the plot summary, we should leave it there. We must trim it to 400-700 words per WP:FILMPLOT to get rid of excessive detail, and as such, the plot's source is the film itself. Also, There is no deadline. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I've got the plot down to 649 words. It might need a few tweaks, though. Feel free to play around with it a little. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Dr Selvig was NOT hit by the Black Widow. When Iron Man tries to attack the Cosmic Cube/Tesseract, the rebound explosion knocked him out. Also, can it be concluded that the "master" in the mid-post credit scene is Thanos. LuvLei (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that, having failed to win their attempt to block getting a plot synopsis put up, the US Wikipedians have now settled on instead deleting the mid-credits sequence from the plot summary, arguing that since the character isn't explicitly named there's no proof of who it is. Never mind that the character is both unmistakable for anyone who knows the comics, and the dialogue is likewise utterly fitting for said character (and I could be more explicit on this point, but then I would be spoiling the reveal here). I have no doubt in my mind that if this had been released in the US first, there'd be no argument as to the identity of who is in the sequence (and if you want to prove me wrong, I'd like to see the same individuals who so zealously removed the mention keep up on the removing it after the US release, and continue to do so for the next couple of years until a subsequent movie confirms his identity - but I bet that won't happen). If you insist he can't be visually identified, then, just as with the Iron Man 2 entry, you list the sequence and describe him. 86.150.65.119 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"anyone who knows the comics": Exactly right. Personal knowledge. The vast majority of the people worldwide who will say this movie will have never read the comics. To them, it's just a mysterious menace. If the filmmakers had wanted to have the Chitauri call him by name, they would have made that choice. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So, now the basis for leaving it out is that most people won't know who he is, and so they should be kept in the dark? By that logic, only what a general layman would know should be included in any and all Wikipedia entries. Previously you stated that he can't be identified as Thanos since you say there is no proof, but now you acknowledge that a large group of people could identify the character accurately, and have changed the reason for not including it to be because that group are not "the majority of the people worldwide." And neither reason explains why the mention of the final scene has been excised completely. If the problem is getting a verifiable identification of the character, then the scene can be mentioned, and the character simply described rather than named. The only reason to cut the mention entirely is because it is considered a spoiler, and since Wikipedia normally has no problem with such spoilers, the only reason to cut it here is because it is a spoiler for US fans who haven't seen the movie yet. So we're back to some American Wikipedians wanting the rules to change when it doesn't suit them. 86.150.65.119 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

First, can the nationalistic talk; I have my issues with British editors, but I keep them to myself. Secondly, I never said in my post that it was Thanos; perhaps I should have been more explicit and said, "anyone who knows the comics" assumes it's Thanos ... Just like they would have assumed the artifact is called the Cosmic Cube when in fact it is not called that in the films. The fact remains, we're not allowed to use personal-knowledge claims, including personal-knowledge assumptions.
And yes, you're correct, "only what a general layman would know should be included in any and all Wikipedia entries" without reliable source citations. That's exactly how Wikipedia works.
I've no idea why the post-credits / mid-credits scene was removed. I think, based on past Marvel-movie articles, it should be in there. I didn't remove it. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"First, can the nationalistic talk;" - I'm not the one who started that talk. The second poster in this particular thread was the one who asked for special treatment for the USA, to whit wanting the plot "kept off English Wikipedia until the American release". Another poster pointed out an example of US editors being quite happy to post the plot of a British film before its British release. The point wasn't that it was a British film, the point was that editors, in that example and in this case here American, were expecting others to adhere to a rule they didn't want to adhere to themselves. "I have my issues with British editors, but I keep them to myself." Good of you to admit your bias. Unlike you, I have no problem with editors from countries that are not my own. I do have a problem with hypocritical ones, regardless of nationality, and it just happens that in this case it appears to the case that all the editors being hypocritical about not putting up plot details are Americans. It's a specific subset of the American editors, not all American editors. Meanwhile you've had posters from a number of countries, not just Britain, raising this issue. The first poster in this thread was in the Phillipines, not Britain, so why did you decide to single out Britain? "I've no idea why the post-credits / mid-credits scene was removed. I think, based on past Marvel-movie articles, it should be in there. I didn't remove it." Then reinstate it. You've made other edits since the issue has been raised, but you haven't reinstated the note about the mid-credits sequence, despite saying you think it should be there. 86.150.65.119 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I removed it because of the constant edit warring of whether or not it is Thanos. If the film doesn't say "Cosmic Cube" or "Thanos" or anything else, then it should not be identified as such in the plot of any of the film articles. We had this issue with The Dark Knight, as Harvey Dent is never called "Two-Face" in the film, even though we know that is who he became. As for post-credit scenes anyway, I'm generally against including them period becaus if they were legitimately part of the film then they would be part of the film, they wouldn't be an easter egg that you had to wait around to see. Regardless, any plot information needs to be an accurate representation of what the film actually depicts, not what we assume it is depicting (no matter how sure we are).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"I removed it because of the constant edit warring of whether or not it is Thanos." Then put a note not to change it to say it is Thanos, but leave the description of what the character looked like. "As for post-credit scenes anyway, I'm generally against including them period becaus if they were legitimately part of the film then they would be part of the film" I think that's spurious logic - they are part of the film. It's not like they are shown in a different cinema. And regardless of your personal feelings about including such sequences, there's plenty of precedent for including them based on the numerous other Wikipedia articles which include them. 86.150.65.119 (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My good colleague  BIGNOLE  is probably correct in that we should keep it out while any edit-warring over it is going on.
I would lean toward including it for two reasons: Consistency with the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe plots (which have all found neutral, non-OR ways of phrasing) and, re: "if they were legitimately part of the film then they would be part of the film," I would suggest that anything onscreen is a "legitimate" part of the film — it's not "illegitimate"; it was put in by the filmmakers themselves — and moreover, it's an in-continuity epilog. Epilogs, I think it we can all agree, are a part of a movie's plot. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So, we are at least in agreement, for what appear to be similar reasons, that it should be included. However, you are still finding new reasons to indefinitely delay adding it. When will the risk of edit warring reduce? Additional people are going to keep seeing the movie for the first time for the next few weeks, if not months, so you are effectively again arguing to hold off mentioning it until after the US release again. Plus some of those people seeing it for the first time will come here and see the lack of mention and try to rectify it, so not mentioning it is just going to encourage edit warring. Better to include it, with a note not to edit it to say it was Thanos, since you are both so insistent on that front. 86.150.65.119 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

IP, I have not seen the film (as I live in Michigan and it doesn't get released until May 4 here), so I cannot put a description of the post-credit scene up. That said, if you need to put that much description into how a character looks just to get around the policy on original research then you're probably trying to hard to begin with to include the scene. If you're going to include the scene it should be done with the same level of terseness as the rest of the article. Yes, it would be appropriate to include a hidden note saying that this character is never identified as Thanos (it would be better if we had Whedon or someone else reliable confirm who it is so that we can just attach a source to it), but we should not also be putting in so much description of how this character looks just to circumvent a policy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, Big, you've known me for at least a couple of years here, and you know I'm not one for circumventing policy — if that's how it appeared, I apologize; it was never my intention. I had included the turn and smile since the point of that epilog wasn't to say, "The aliens say they will never again attempt to conquer Earth," but that "The aliens say they will never again attempt to conquer earth and their master reacts." It doesn't matter how he reacts, just that he does, so that the epilog has some point to it. There's no point for a defeated antagonist to say, "Oh, we're defeated." That's already been shown.
As for what Whedon would say, you'll get a kick out of this: Like many journalists, I had a chance to interview him (unfortunately before seeing the movie; just how the screenings worked out) and I specifically prompted, "You've said you wanted a second villain, 'somebody who was up to their level.' The most charismatic one I can think of who matches that description is Thanos." He answered, "No, I was actually looking at somebody a little less world-conquery. He's actually out of their league." Make of that what one will! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I was not trying to imply that you were doing that. I was specifically referring to the suggestion that the text be written in a way that overal details how this "master" appears, not what he is doing. The IP suggested just describing how he looks (or at least that was how I interpreted their statement above: "then the scene can be mentioned, and the character simply described rather than named."). To me, that would be circumenting the policy, because it is still pushing the agenda that it's Thanos without overtly stating it. IMO, that's wrong. I haven't seen it, but I trust viewer judgment that that is who it was. That being said, it's still not appropriate to mention it on the page that way. This is probably the best way to describe the scene, though again one would ask the question, "Why explain that he's purple skinned?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Ironically, I'm the one who originally wrote that "best way to describe the scene"! Fair point, though, about "purple-skinned" — that would not have any meaning to the average viewer. If he were on Earth and purple-skinned, that would be significant, signifying, "alien or otherwise non-human character." But since the scene takes place in space, that's a given, so you're right, no need to say "purple-skinned." What do you think of the description you linked to minus that phrase? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the statement: "In a post-credits scene, the Chitauri leader tells his master that it is futile to attack Earth; the master just turns and smiles." - or something like that, is probably fine. But that's my opinion. Wikipedia is built on consensus, so others need to weigh in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Whatever your feelings on the plot, can we stop discussing theory in the edit summaries and thus spoiling things? I now know who appears in the end credits and who dies and I haven't even read the article. Unwatching this article now until I can see the film since people apparently can't consider that you don't need to be reading the article to be spoiled. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Whedon himself confirms it's Thanos: http://www.slashfilm.com/exclusive-joss-whedon-kevin-feige-explain-origin-the-avengers-post-script/ 91.44.105.89 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and Kevin Feige already did. We have a footnote to that effect already. All good. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we please remove the wikilinks for the main characters and cast from the plot? They're all linked in the infobox, the lede, the plot, and then the cast section, 4 times in each of the 4 earliest sections of the article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Avengers_(2012_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1144183200"