Talk:Thor: The Dark World/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cast order

The billing block is used for "starring" in infobox. Does it really need 14 names? This is not an ensemble cast. I propose the 4 names (Hemsworth, Portman, Hiuddleston, Hopkins) are the only ones needed in the infobox as they re listed pre-title in the billing block and also in large typface at the top of the poster. I don't think the cast list in the billing block of the poster should be used for the cast order in the article, but it should be based on the primary source (the film), and so should be either in the order billed in the film or the cast list in the end credits. Also I think the Cast list should include all the billed actors, and then any relevant cameos. A final comment: Stan Lee's role is not a cameo but a small CREDITED role as "Himself". Before I made the changes I wanted to here any comments.AbramTerger (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to ignore guidelines in this case. The number of names isn't important and coming before or after the title isn't nessecarily an indication of the starring roles. Also cameos can be credit as well and we have reliable sources stating its a cameo.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I apologize for not being clear. I am trying to keep to the guidelines, but there are multiple ways to do it. The guidelines for the infobox Template:Infobox film indicates that we are to use the names as they are billed, but rhere is no guideline as to how many names need to be included. My suggestion is to just list the names of the 4 "stars", not all the names in the billing block [There are names in the billing block not included in the infobox per guidelines (like Exec Producers)]. The cast list is not the infobox and has different guidelines. For the cast, the guideline MOS:FILM is billing and the primary source is the film, not the poster which is a secondary source. Some use the billing order from the credits others use the cast list order (typically only keeping primary actors - those billed, which I think should be film-billing). As an encyclopedia, we should be focusing on what is in the film, before we look outside the film for information. Also the suggestion of just listing the rest of those billed (instead of shoving many into a paragraph). As to Stan Lee I am not suggesting removing the reference, but point out he appears in a small credited role as himself (A cameo suggests uncredited, like Evans as Capt America)). A credited role needs no citation, it is credited in the primary source. I also think any credited roles should be noted before any uncredited appearances.AbramTerger (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as the names are in the official billing block seen at the bottom of the poster. If its a cameo that isn't there, its best saved for the cast section. Rusted AutoParts 13:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film suggests using the billing block. Ignoring it in this case, I think will be a disservice. It accurately reflects the film, and it is consistent with how Marvel has been billing all their films. Also both the poster and the film are WP:PRIMARY sources as they are both are published by Marvel and WP:SECONDARY sources are actually preferable over primary sources, BTW. Cameos can be either credited and uncredited and we have secondary reliable sources stating Lee's is a cameo.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The infobox template does not say that ALL the names have to be used. That is up to a consensus and I have proposed just the 4 stars. But the cast list is unrelated to the billing block. Secondary sources are for notabilty (like which unbilled or uncredited actors to list), but not for billing. The billing given in the film should be given the most credit, and not taken from a a source outside the actual film (no matter what the source). I think the order in the poster is fine for the infobox "starring" but not for the cast list. To me the question is using the order listed in the billing of the film or the order given in the credits. If there is no film billing, and no credits then the poster would be a good source.AbramTerger (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It says "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster." That is what is done and I see no sufficient reason as to why we should deviate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should divert from the guideline, and accepted format for MCU pages, and limit the names in the infobox. Size or number of names is not an issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was not to deviate from this guidline. My suggestion was to "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster." but not list all the names in the billing block, but just the stars (there is a discussion on the talkpage of the template about making it more clear) as guideline since there is some confusion. But the infobox was only one question: What about the question on film billing in the cast list which has different guidelines. That quote was for the infobox template. The MOS:FILM indicates the guidelines to list by billing and to use the film as the primary source. The billing in the film does not match the poster, nor does it match the order of full cast credits. My suggestion has been to use the film billing order for the cast list and then add notable credited actors who were not billed (eg Stan Lee) than notable uncredited (like Del Toro).AbramTerger (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

By your account, we now take personal opinion into who is a "star" and who isn't. This guideline states to use the actors listed in the billing block, and that is what we have done. By your suggestion, we open it up to "Well X actor should be there and Y shouldn't. Maybe Z, I'm not sure about them." And we have had this discussion before in MCU film articles. Please read this, which also links to other discussions about this matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not personal opinion. The poster lists 4 people in larger typeface at the top. those names are also listed pre-title in the billing block. These are indications on the poster about who are the stars: some posters don't include the billing block but have the 4 names at the top. As I said, it is a suggestion (and being discussed about explicitly listing that as part of the guidelines for the infobox, to not clutter it up).AbramTerger (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, since the director, writers, cinematographer, film editor and producers aren't in large typeface at the top, we should get rid of them too? That's why we incorporate the billing block. Lots of films have large casts that they acknowledge in the block. See New Year's Eve or Bobby. Rusted AutoParts 17:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow the reasoning. We are not putting them in starring now, we put them in the appropriate credit and we add them in the infobox, whether they are in the billing block or not. And not everyone in the billing block now goes in the infobox per guidelines. We don't put in exec Prod, for example. The item we are entering is "starring", some of those in the billing block are not starring in the film but are co-stars. The current guideline does not state to put everyone listed in the billing block in the infobox, it is to use the credited names in the infobox, not alternate names or their names now, but the names as they were billed then. That is the intent of the line that is being quoted.AbramTerger (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the other three editors here as to what the guidelines say. Infobox credits used to be such a contentious issue until consensus arrived for something as simple and objective as the credits billing block. In fact, it was just this kind of subjective discussion ("notable uncredited actors") that the guidelines were designed to prevent, since it involves our spending a lot of time rehashing old ground. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Besides, it isn't fair to exclude them. Christopher Eccleston is the main villain, and even though he's not up amongst the top names, he's in the billing block. Same with Sebastian Stan for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. As Tenebrae said, the billing block is used to avoid those credited in the block, but after the main actors from being disclosed. Same thing happened with The Wolf of Wall Street. Rusted AutoParts 18:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok the consensus seems to be to keep all the actors in the Infobox, I am going to drop that issue. But the "notable uncredited actors" was an issue with the cast list in the article and (as far as I was concerned is not in dispute in any way). What I raised in the cast list, was the MOS:FILM guidelines about putting the cast list in billing order (which it currently is not), it uses poster billing block order (which is NOT the order within the film). The billing block does not match the billing in the film nor does it match the credit list (which also does not match the billing in the film). If we go by the billing block, than the notable uncredited actors and even the credited cameos should be removed (which I am not suggesting, since the cast does not need to match the infobox). What I am suggesting: 1) listing the actors in the order billed within the film, 2) include in the list all billed actors (whether on the poster or not) 3) list any credited small roles (eg Stan Lee), 4) then uncredited cameos (Evans), and 4) future roles (del Toro) [the uncredited mid/post credit appearances with citations).AbramTerger (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no sweet clue what you're going on about anymore. That's what we do in the cast section already, isn't it? Detailing the rest of the notable appearances. Rusted AutoParts 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion had to do with the order: First list the cast by film billing, including in the list all billed actors, then list notable credited, but unbilled actors, then notable uncrediteds. This is not what is in the current cast list. Before I started editing it, I wanted to get other comments and suggestions.AbramTerger (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's fine. The poster is as good as any order and is consistent with the infobox. Besides there are multiple credit orders in the film including the end credit cards and the end credit roll. And no, we do not need to list every actor on the credit roll.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the cast list here is too long and filled with cast who clearly are not in starring roles, but this is the guideline and it is better than the previous situation where people just fought constantly over who was where in the order. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

But what about the cast list in the Article? The guidelines there are for the billing in the film (which is not what is in the article). So is the consensus to put the cast list in the billing order of the film or the order listed in the cast credits (but only include those billed in the film) plus the notable exceptions of Stan Lee and del Toro?AbramTerger (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAST just states billing, it does not specify which billing to use. Besides there are multiple billings in this particular film. The consensus appears to be to leave the page as it is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not the consensus I am reading. I am reading that the consensus is NOT to keep as it is but that consensus is to use the billing block as the criteria for being listed in the cast list. This consensus suggests to me that we delete the final paragraph since none of them in that list are the 14 billed actors. I would however suggest that we keep the unbilled cameos by Evans and Lee (though I think we need to change "Stan Lee makes a cameo appearance[53] as a patient in a mental ward" to something that matches what is in the film ""Stan Lee makes a cameo appearance[53] as Himself during a scene in a mental ward." It is a credited role and his role is credited literally as "Himself", the citation does not even list him "as a patient in a mental ward", so the credit in the film is not at odds with the citation [the citation seems redundant since the part is credited in the film so needs no citation]. In addition to keeping the unbilled cameos, I think the sentence about the mid-credit sequence is notable and can be kept. I don't see how any of the other unbilled actors are notable in this film. I think Lee's cameo as credited should be first, then Evans and finally the del Toro/Lovibond mid-credits should be last. This lists the order as in film proper before mid-credit sequence, and credited before uncredited appearances. [If we want to include more than the 14 billing block actors, as I have proposed before, Krige and O'Dowd would have been added when we go to the 16 film-billed actors). None of the other 4 seem to me to be notable enough to add: Russell and Howard are credited but not in either billing list, and Curran and Brake are not even credited within the film].AbramTerger (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What? Where exactly are you seeing this? Who is a part of this "consensus"? Literally everybody in this thread has disagreed with you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved Kringe, and O'Dowd up. I however disagree about the others; Howard and Curran have small but notable roles, and Russell is prominent actor in a notable character from the comics. I also left Evans and Lee where they are as is consistent with cameos in other MCU articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

They have not expressed disagreement on all my points. They have disagreed about using stars over the entire billing block in the infobox and that I have conceded. They have disagreed on using Film-billing over billing block in the cast list and I can accept that, but you can't seem to accept that consensus. But once we accept the discussion moves to which UN-billed names are notable and I have not seen a consensus on that. Now we are looking at exceptions to the guidelines established. You seem to want to keep 10 unbilled actors in the cast list. If you are going to keep Kringe and O'Dowd I don't see the reasoning for choosing billing block over film-billed as you have essentially now added all the film-billed actors, so why the preference on using the (outside the film) billing block over the (inside the film) billing? Why not just use the Film-billing as the criteria as they are film-billed so you keep the article based on the primary source instead of a secondary source? Or since you seem to want the 18 credited names, why not throw out the billing and take the top 17 names listed in the credits list and add just O'Dowd [This is the credited list you have now] and put them in cast list order to be consistent. As I have stated before I see the cameos of Evans and Lee as notable [though do you really believe that Stan Lee is himself a mental patient? He is credited as himself, that takes precedence over a citation even if you found one]. And the mid-credit sequence people are notable. But I don't see why the others are notable in the film? Some are not even credited and none are major stars. Notable in the comics does not make notable in the film. The consensus seemed to not be consistent and follow the guidelines and some of this extra information seems arbitrary and based on personal opinions with no standards.AbramTerger (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No one has supported any of your proposed changes. The bulleted list is the same as the billing used throughout this article. The bottom paragraph is for additional notable players and is consistent with every other film article in this series. Notability is determined by coverage by secondary reliable sources. And again secondary sources trump primary sources per policy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The additional actors are notable because their presence in the film has been noted by reliable sources. This is how we've handled every film page in the series. We list the billed actors with additional information, and then note the actors who have been deemed notable in the coverage of the film. Abram, you seem to be arguing that we should either exclude these additional actors, which then leaves the page needlessly incomplete, or exhaustively list every actor in the film, which is not and never has been Wikipedia's goal. Neither is a reasonable alternative. Don't know what to tell you beyond that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not what I am stating. I proposed a smaller list of billed actors and a few others instead of just the billing block. But if more actors are added, the order still needs to be evaluated since by adding more actors than are listed in the billing block, you have abandoned that listing as inadequate. I apologize for not being clear in my previous posts. Perhaps I can clarify. I have no issue with agreeing with what seemed to be the consensus of using the Billing Block for the cast list. The issue comes after it was decided to abandon the billing block and add other notable actors outside the billing block. Once the billing block was abandoned as inadequate, an objective means of listing the list of actors that is consistent with the MOS:FILM guidelines needs to be decided on. For some films, you can pretty much add more people, but some (and Thor2 is one of those "some") the billing changes depending on the number of actors chosen. Part of this issue is the presence of the special classes of actors (Russo and Hopkins). Russo is a "'with' Actor" which gets special billing and Hopkins is an "'And' actor" which gets even more special billing and so the billing order will change with the number in the list. Both the "With" and the "and" actors go at the end of the billing, the AND has stronger billing than the WITH so goes later. Hopkins on the poster is among the 4 topped billed actors and shows up at the end of that list (Hemsworth, Portman, Hiddleston, Hopkins), the billing block actually has 2 tiers the pre-title (which are the top-billed actors) with Hopkins (as AND) last in the list and a block of 10 secondary actors with the WITH (Russo) at the end (Hemsworth, Portman, Hiddleston, and Hopkins; Skarsgård, Elba, Eccleston, Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Dennings, Stevenson, Levi, Asano, Alexander, with Russo) [Because of these 2-tiers many editors will make the objective choice to just the 1st-tier to represent the stars. The top billing on the poster also supports this objective choice of stars. The AND is also an objective sign that Hopkins is the last of the "stars" in the list]. But in the case we are discussing, when the choice is made to add additional actors to the list (and abandon the billing block list), one must decide the order of the entire new list. If for example, O'Dowd and Krige are added as notable (and they are since they are billed actors in the film), the editors must choose how to list these 16 names. The MOS:FILM guidelines indicate that billing should be the primary choice and we can do so using the order of billing in the film since these 16 are all "billed actors" (and they deserve to be billed properly and objectively, not subjectively as is now listed). But the film's billing does not have the 2 tiers (as the billing block had differentiating the main from secondary), so Hopkins (as the AND) goes to the end of the billing, and Russo (as the WITH) goes 2nd to last so O'Dowd and Krige go before Russo in the list. With these 16 actors in the list, the objective listing with the MOS:FILM Guidelines would thus be film billing: Hemsworth, Portman, Hiddleston, Skarsgård, Elba, Eccleston, Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Dennings, Stevenson, Levi, Asano, Alexander, O'Dowd, Krige, with Russo, and Hopkins, not the billing block order +2. But the decision we really need to discuss is when there are more actors that need to be listed than are billed. The total desired for this film is 20 Credited actors and 4 Uncredited actors. Since the list is now beyond the Film's billing, and way beyond the billing block, the next objective criteria from MOS:FILM for the actors is the Cast list presented in the film. This listing does not use any WITH and AND "special billing" so both Hopkins and Russo move into a more relative place of where they "star" within the film. Therefore the objective listing of the 20 credited actors in cast list order should be: Hemsworth, Portman, Hiddleston, Hopkins, Eccleston, Alexander, Levi, Stevenson, Asano, Elba, Russo, Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Dennings, Skarsgård, Krige, Russell, Howard, O'Dowd, Brake, Lee. Then the decision needs to be made for the 4 uncredited actors. This can be done a variety of ways. I recommend: film appearace, cameos, post-film sequence to give the order: Curran, Evans, Del Toro, and Lovibond. I hope this is more clear.AbramTerger (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears you may not know where the billing block is. The billing block that is referred to in this guideline, which was not decided to be abandoned - it's used, is located in the fine print at the bottom of the poster. We list it in the order the studio has given us. At this point Abram, you have 5 editors all in agreement that the current policy has been correctly enforced on this page. There is not really much more we can keep telling you, so it may be best just to drop it and move on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I know where the billing block is, but it is only appropriate for those 14 actors (which is what is used in the infobox). I am not discussing the infobox, but the Order in the cast list. This list is NOT using the 14 billing block actors but 20 credited cast members and 4 uncredited. As I have indicated, the order changes when more actors are added to the list and need to be sorted. Billing is not appropriate at the actors, so we go to credit order per guidelines.AbramTerger (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see the issue you are having. All the bulleted actors in the cast section follow the billing block. Then below that, we mention any additional cast members that were in a non-starring role. What is confusing/misleading to you about that? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

But there are 2 actors in starring roles that are not bulleted who are not given the credit they earned (based on what is in the film). The Cast members discussed are 20 + 4 not 14+6 as I mention this makes the order and status different. The billing block order is only appropriate for those 14 actors unless only add non-billed actors. You also don't differentiate credited vs non-credited roles.AbramTerger (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No offence, but your argument is all over the place. Everyone that's in the billing block is in the infobox, and bulleted in the cast section, with notable appearances, credited and uncredited listed. What's your issue? Rusted AutoParts 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay let's try to get to the crux of this. Abram, let's start out with this question and only this: Where are you looking that you find a cast ordering different from the billing block at the bottom of the release poster? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to start out by saying that I appreciate the discussion and I really am not trying to be difficult (if I were that king of editor, I would have been changing without discussing as many do). But I admit that the discussion is really not going anyplace, and I am not going to edit since my thoughts are obviously different than those who have responded. I will reply to Favre1fan93 specifically, but I think it will answer Rusted AutoParts query as well. The film (primary source) has 2 places that have a cast order from the 14 names in the billing block (which is a secondary source and more a promotional item than a source). The first list is the 16 names which received billing within the film [Billed in the order: Hemsworth, Portman, Hiddleston, Skarsgård, Elba, Eccleston, Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Dennings, Stevenson, Levi, Asano, Alexander, O'Dowd, Krige, with Russo, and Hopkins]. The 2nd list in the film is the 39 credited names in the cast [listed in this order: Hemsworth, Portman, Hiddleston, Hopkins, Eccleston, Alexander, Levi, Stevenson, Asano, Elba, Russo, Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Dennings, Skarsgård, Krige, Russell, Howard, Morgan, Alassadi, Chentouf, Brown, Calcutt, Caton, McCann, Arnold, Swainsbury, Donaghey, Pierreson, Norbury, Cosson, O'Dowd, Edwards, Glyn, Brake, Lee, Scott, Tucker, Riley, Wharton]. Both of those listings are different than the ordering of the 14 actors in the billing block. Now objectively any of those lists can be used for the cast list in the article. The problem I see is that after the decision is made that there are 24 notable actors are being listed in the cast section of the article and that requires them to be ordered in some manner based on wiki guidelines. The 14 billing block actors is an inadequate list of the 24 notable cast members as is the 16 actors billed in the film. Objectively, that leaves the credit listing as the only means from the film in which to order them. Thhis is not completely adequate since it only covers 20 of desired 24, but it is the list from the sources used which covers the most actors of the 24. [That order is: Hemsworth, Portman, Hiddleston, Hopkins, Eccleston, Alexander, Levi, Stevenson, Asano, Elba, Russo, Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Dennings, Skarsgård, Krige, Russell, Howard, O'Dowd, Brake, Lee]. the other 4 (Curran, del Toro, Evans, Lovibond) are uncredited in the film so that some decision outside the film must be used to list them, anyway.AbramTerger (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Just as I thought. It seems you are interpreting the "billing block" in the guideline to mean the film credits, when its intents is to mean the one at the bottom of the release poster. And once again, that is correctly how the actors are listed here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No I am not. There are 24 actors listed in the cast article but only 14 are in the billing block. And we have moved beyond the billing block guideline for the Template:Infobox film [My argument for the infobox, was that the infobox did not need 14 names in the starring, but should be limited to the 4 actors who received "top-billing", but that was not the consensus and has been dropped]. What the discussion is now focusing on is the order of the cast listing in the article (proper) and the guidelines in WP:CASTLIST about ordering based on "billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources". As I have mentioned the decision has been made that the 14 actors listed in the billing block is an inadequate representation of the cast for the article. The choice has been to list 24 actors in the cast section of the article. The billing block of 14 actors and even the film's billing list of 16 are both inadequate to objectively order all the 24 names. Therefore an objective list of more names should be used. The cast list in the film can be used to objectively order 20 of those 24. The other 4 as uncredited would have to use a subjective means anyway since there names are not listed in the film. My point remains that once the 24 names are chosen for the cast, and need to be listed in the article in some manner, an objective listing of them needs to be achieved and it is my contention that this is not being done as the criteria that has been argued as being chosen (the billing block) is inadequate to objectively do this task completely.AbramTerger (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I will once again point back to the discussion on the Guardians of the Galaxy talk page that stated, as determined for the MCU film pages, the bulleted cast is ONLY the cast from the poster billing block, and everyone else that is notable in a paragraph below that. Beyond stating this again, I don't know what else to tell you beyond just letting this go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thor: The Dark World/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prashant! (talk · contribs) 03:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

First, Refrences. Checkout if all the refrences are consistent. In some, publisher's name is wikilinked but, other's don't link. —Prashant 05:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. -Fandraltastic (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Now lead, this sentence seems too long...split it into two sentences. "The film was directed by Alan Taylor, with a screenplay by Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely,[3] and stars Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Idris Elba, Christopher Eccleston, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Kat Dennings, Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi, Tadanobu Asano, Jaimie Alexander and Rene Russo."—Prashant 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You can say...It stars Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman and Tom Hiddleston. With.....(the rest) in supporting roles. Or something like that.—Prashant 17:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Plot section is very large. It needs some trimming (if it can be done). More than the required rule.—Prashant 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Split that lead sentence in two. The plot is 638 words, well within the suggested range. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reception

Why predecessor is linked at second/third occuring and not at first occuring?—Prashant 18:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be linked at all, removed it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Too much quotes all over the article, some of them should be paraphrased especially the whole production and marketing section.—Prashant 18:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of them are paraphrased, and there's no guideline against using direct quotations. -Fandraltastic (talk)

I agree, the use of quotations in this article is well within good article standards and quite a few of them are paraphrased.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean that all should be paraphrased but, at least 2-3 from those two sections. Its fine if you don't want to change it. Other than that the article has no problem.—Prashant 01:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pretty good effort overall, thanks for addressing the points.—Prashant 01:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Starring

I removed most of the names in the starring parameter of the infobox. There were over a dozen names in it an even though they are all in the billing block, there are 4 main stars listed pre-title and larger font on the poster. This seems to me to be a clear indication of "Starring". The billing block seems more the entire primary cast (to be used for the cast list). The infobox is meant to be a summary.AbramTerger (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Loki's "death"

I find this revert by Adamstom.97 to be ridiculous. The plot section in his preferred version simply contradicts itself. It states that Loki is mortally wounded; then it states that Loki appears alive in another scene. Properly written articles do not contradict themselves. The edit summary used in the revert was, "we are summarising the plot, not interpreting it. when he "apparently" died, we didn't know that it wsa [sic] only apparent." Adamstom.97 seems to think that plot summaries should never "interpret" things, but saying that Loki is mortally wounded is as much of an interpretation as saying that he is "apparently" mortally wounded. It's also clearly an incorrect interpretation, as the last scenes of the film show. The fact that viewers of the film don't know at that stage in the film that Loki isn't actually killed is totally irrelevant. So I humbly suggest you self-revert, Adamstom.97. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We are not retelling the events depicted in the film, we are retelling the plot, which is why we don't do things like rewritting the story in alphabetical order, as the information should be presented here as it is done in the plot, albeit in a summarised form. Therefore, when we think Loki dies in the film, we should also think this in the summary, and when he is revealed to be alive in the film, it should be a revelation in the summary. So if you feel the section is contradicting itself, then perhaps the ending revelation should be re-written, but we definitely should not be adding "apparently" to the plot when Loki "dies". - adamstom97 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This approach only leads the article to contradict itself, which is ridiculous. You say that "we think Loki dies in the film." Who is this "we"? Speak for yourself, please. I didn't think Loki was dead necessarily, so arguments based on assumptions about what "we" believe are worthless. On consideration, I actually agree with you that saying Loki "apparently" dies isn't appropriate, but there are other and better ways to rewrite the plot section so that it does not blatantly contradict itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, if you can think of a better way of revealling that Loki is alive at the end (something not currently written very well anyway, in my opinion) then that is probably the best way to avoid contradictions. Unfortunately, this an issue that we have to deal with too much in MCU articles, but I believe that this is the best approach for us to avoid any contradictions, which I agree is something we want to avoid. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The current version by TriiipleThreat looks fine to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted this recent edit by Darkwarriorblake, which inexplicably added an (incorrect) interpretation of the film to the plot section with the comment, "how it happens." Darkwarriorblake, if you want to make edits like that, you are really going to have to give a better explanation. Your edit makes the plot section blatantly contradict itself, which, as noted above, is not appropriate. The only attempt at justification that anyone has given so far for adding that self-contradictory nonsense to the plot section was that, by adding it, we are preserving the surprise at the end when it is revealed that Loki is still alive. I don't consider that a relevant factor; plot sections don't exist to give readers exciting surprises, they are there to describe the film. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't about surprising the reader, it is about accurately summarising the plot of the film. And I have already explained how to avoid the contradiction: rewrite the reveal to be a reveal. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying that Loki is fatally wounded does not accurately summarize the plot of the film. That's the whole point. I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "rewrite the reveal to be a reveal". Could you please explain properly what you mean? Clear communication helps. And to Darkwarriorblake, in regard to the inaccurate interpretation of the plot that you added here, I have to say that I have seen Thor: The Dark World a number of times, have no need to rewatch it yet again, and am not at all impressed by your refusal to justify your behavior on the talk page. Asserting over and over again that you are right, without providing any argument or any reason, is the behavior of someone who is not on strong ground. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the behavior of someone who has dealt with you before and knows that you will not alter your standpoint so it is pointless conversing with you. In the film he is stabbed, and he dies. For all intents and purposes, this is what we as the audience are shown and led to believe, it is not debatable, it is not arguable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, personal abuse. An unfortunate way to respond. I've changed my mind on issues many times, Darkwarriorblake, even if you weren't there to notice. Not discussing on the talk page always implies that you can't properly defend your position. Saying I'll never change my mind is just a lame excuse for not doing something that's necessary on a collaborative project. Yes, in the film, he is stabbed, but no, he does not die. Why say he dies when it isn't true? When you say, "this is what we as the audience are shown and led to believe", what do you think you are saying? Why can't you see that it doesn't make sense? This "we" to which you refer doesn't exist, as I already elaborately pointed out to adamstom97. I didn't believe Loki was dead. So you are wrong: arguments based on what "we" believe are based on nothing. PS, it's never true that something is not debatable here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Adamstorm. Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, if you haven't convinced me you're right, that's not because nothing could make me change my mind, it's because you have not offered a rational argument or referred to any relevant policy. Instead you have made some strange and inaccurate comments that you apparently expect other people to automatically agree with. I realize that consensus is not favoring my position at present, but that does not mean I intend to simply drop the issue. TriiipleThreat, do you have any comment? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:SHED would apply here. Though technically incorrect, I have zero doubt that any rationale person reading the previous version wouldn't understand how Loki reappears at the end of the section if he was fatally wounded earlier in the summary. WP:PLOTPRESENT may also be applicable. We write plot summaries from the narrative present, so for all intent and purposes Loki died at that moment in the film. It isn't until later, that we discover that he is alive.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SHED and WP:PLOTPRESENT are both essays (or parts of essays), not policies or guidelines, but I thank you for directing me to them nevertheless, TriiipleThreat. I understand the point you are making writing plot summaries from the narrative present, but I note that WP:PLOTPRESENT gives very broad advice: "By convention, story plots are written in the narrative present—that is, in the present tense as the story unfolds." It ought to be possible to do that in a number of different ways; in this case, it should be possible to do it without making the plot section engage in self-contradiction. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Insertion of 2013-11-08 Comicbook.com article "Thor: The Dark World After The Credits Detailed"

@ Adamstom.97: The 2013-11-08 Comicbook.com source „Thor: The Dark World After The Credits Detailed“ comes from the Collector page. Because the source was relevant in general for the „Thor: The Dark World“ wikipage I inserted here. After it was removed I moved it to a better place. This time as a second/back up source that the midcredits scene was directed by James Gunn and by Thor: The Dark World director Alan Taylor. Hopefully this is a sufficient explanation and reason for the continued inclusion of the aforemention source. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The information is already sourced on the page. If we just added every applicable source then the page would be full of a ridiculous amount of unnecessary and redundant references. Unless you are adding/referencing something new, don't add another source. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversed this deletion for two reasons. The first reason is that I added a new information i.e. the post credits scene serves as a set-up for Guardians of the Galaxy. This is consistent with your demand that a source can be added if something new is added. The second reason is that more detailled information on the post credits scene can be found through the added source. This is consistent with WP:WHYCITE's purpose of helping users to find additional information on a subject. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 May 2015 (edit)

Comicbook.com is a site of user-generated content and so disallowed as a Wikipedia reference source. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I replaced the reference source with two reliable ones. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the content addition because a) it is unnecessary terminology and b) it doesn't really set up the movie. It connects to the film, but in no way sets up the plot of that film as in Sif and Volstagg brining the Aether does not affect what Quill or the Guardians do in that film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the content addition because a) to restore two reliable sources and b) to add new content with respect to the purpose of the post credit's scene. Since I'm not a native English speaker my terminology is not always perfect in my attempts to help users finding additional information on a subject i.e. in this case of the mid-credits scene. For this reason I welcome your comments in order to improve the content of the Thor: The Dark World wikipage. Any help from You in this context is welcome.--P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you apparently didn't read my comment (as you added content again), I'll state again. There is no need to expand this information in this section. We fully cover what the mid-credit scene entails in the plot section, and give context to that scene in the post-production section that Gunn directed it. Stating that he directed it because he was also the direct of Guardians is just unnecessarily repeating content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I read your previous comment. That's why I added new content based on the previously used sources. And I thank You for your last comment. I want to readd the content your deleted to show the purpose of the mid-cretis scene i.e. that the mid-credits scene connects Thor: The Dark World with Guardians of the galaxy by the Collector's presence in both films as stated in the two presviously sources. But I don't know where's the right place to add this information. Perhaps as a note after the Collector's remark "One down, five to go."? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused by this request as well. All of the information that you are looking for is already in the article: 1. The director of GotG, directed the mid-credit scene. 2. The actors who play the Collector and his aide also play the same characters in GotG. Your edits seem redundant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, you say that "the mid-credit scene connects Thor: The Dark World with Guardians of the galaxy". It doesn't. The mid- and post-credit scenes of MCU films are largely independent of the film it appears on, and are done to show connective tissue to the larger universe. So because of this, once again, there really isn't any more to add to this info that isn't already there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: You are wrong when you think that "all of the information" I'm looking for "is already in the article: 1. The director of GotG, directed the mid-credit scene. 2. The actors who play the Collector and his aide also play the same characters in GotG." What Im interested in is to show the purpose and significance of the mid-credits scene within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

@TriiipleThreat and Favre1fan93: While the post-credits scene is a self-contained scene with no large ramifications beyond Thor: The Dark World, the mid-credits scene is in my eyes far more important within the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). What runs like a golden thread through all MCU movies are the Infinity Stones. The Huffington Post source says about the mid-credits scene in this context: "What's important in the clip is that he (The Collector; amendment statement by me) is given the Aether and there is mention of the Tesseract, which fans will remember from the previous Marvel films. Both items are referred to as being two of six "Infinity Stones."" And The New York magazine's Vulture.com states with respect to the infinity stones: "There are six infinity gems in total. Collect them all, and you get the Infinity Gauntlet, a tool of immense, godlike power [...] Marvel president Kevin Feige and Gunn have already confirmed Thanos’s presence in next summer’s Guardians, a film that the Collector will also play a major role in. That makes this Thor 2 post-credits handoff the connective tissue between Phases Two and Three of Marvel’s overarching plan. Essentially, the scene sets up a potential showdown in [...] Guardians [...] between Thanos, who’s after the infinity gems, and our superheroes, who will look to stop the alien from blowing the universe to bits." Given the nature of the Infinity Stones as the golden thread running through the MCU movies and the aforementioned quotes I would like to incorporate the importance of the mid-credits scene with respect to the Infinity Stones into the Thor: The Dark World wiki article. Any suggestions how and where this can be achieved in the article?--P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. What you're describing sounds like WP:SYNTH. "What Im interested in is to show the purpose and significance of the mid-credits scene within the Marvel Cinematic Universe." That's not our job. Our job is to describe the concrete, manifest content of the movie. Readers can draw their own conclusions from there.

Separately, I would note that the bulk of HuffPo writers are not writing professionally and their "articles" are user-generated content. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

100% agree with Tenebrae. There is nothing really significant about this post credit scene then any of their other ones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve the issue: Addition of The New York magazine's Vulture.com source behind the sentence "The film's mid-credits scene was directed by James Gunn, the director of Marvel Studios' Guardians of the Galaxy." Besides being a second source which confirms that Gunn direchted the mid-credits scene the source helps users to find additional information on the subject of the mid-/post-credit scene and helps users to draw their own conclusions from these two scenes. I think this is a balanced proposal which should help to resolve the issue of the mid-credis scene without further lengthy discussions.--P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

While I think a second cite might not be strictly necessary, I've always believed in finding compromise solutions if we can. This suggestion doesn't add any conjecture to the article but simply another citation. What do the other editors in this discussion think? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Because there are no reactions from the other editors in this discussion thus far I'm gonna add the The New York magazine's Vulture.com source to close the issue. Anyone who has objections to this shall state them here at the talk page to resolve any possible conflict peacefully. Thanks. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

New comments from Taylor

Any place to add them here, or maybe at the main MCU page? [1] - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Consistency on reviews

The part where it says the film received mixed reviews makes absolutely no sense. Thor: The Dark World was received exactly the same way as The Incredible Hulk, and yet that film has received "generally favorable reviews", according to its article. Either they both received mixed reviews or generally favorable reviews, but one cannot be different from the other.Rotten Tomatoes 189.6.17.235 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia article perspective, it looks consistent to me. The Rotten Tomatoes scores are listed first in each, followed by the Meta Critic scores. The "mixed or average reviews" and "generally favorable" characterizations are quoted directly from the cited Meta Critic pages. - DinoSlider (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to the summary of both articles. Thor received a 57 out of 100 on Metacritic, which is on the high end of "mixed or average reviews", and yet it says the film received positive reviews on its article. I don't think this is impartial. -189.6.17.235 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your original comment compared Thor: The Dark World to The Incredible Hulk, which still looks consistent to me. Now you are comparing Thor: The Dark World to Thor and I do see your point on that one. It seems to me like the lead for Thor does not reflect the contents of the critical response section. Perhaps a discussion is warranted on that page. - DinoSlider (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)