Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:The Avengers: Age of Ultron)
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Avengers: Age of Ultron has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Avengers: Age of Ultron is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 15, 2015 Peer review Reviewed
April 5, 2015 Good topic candidate Promoted
July 6, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed
October 21, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 29, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Avengers: Age of Ultron, the upcoming sequel to the 2012 film The Avengers, is not based on the comic book series, Age of Ultron?
Current status: Good article

Hoax post credits scene[edit]

@Darkwarriorblake: It was a hoax.[1] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Avengers: Age of Ultron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mention of Atwell and Elba in the lead?[edit]

The cloud of blue in the opening paragraph is messy and ugly, and no one in their right mind would try to read it from start to finish. Ideally we could just mention the leads (the actors portraying the title characters or whose images appear on the poster), but two that definitely need to go are Atwell and Elba: they are one-minute cameos, and their characters don't actually take part in the story (they are literally just a fever dream). I think I brought this up before, but if I don't see a reason to keep them in on this page within the next seven days I'll remove them myself. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMCAST, the order given is that of the billing block. This is done for exactly a reasons such as this: to remove user opinions on the matter of certain actors. It is irrelevant that you feel Atwell and Elba should be removed because of their small appearances. The billing block order is the neutral order we use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Favre1fan93 is right that to avoid subjective interpretation, the consensus has been to let the official poster's star billing decide for us. The main discussion where I believe this was decided is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 9#Cast rewrite. However, as you may notice, this discussion (as well as the guideline WP:FILMCAST) focuses on how to handle the Cast section, not specifically on how to handle the cast list in the lead. It just so happens that over time, we applied the guideline to the lead section as well.
As I've come across more and more films with extensive star billing lists (the Marvel movies are great examples), I'm beginning to feel the same way that including the entire billing list is counterproductive. The lead doesn't need to be this detailed, and we should avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE whenever possible. If there isn't a good alternative way of narrowing down the list to the film's primary stars, then the list probably shouldn't be in the lead when it's this long. Perhaps its time to revisit the issue considering long lists in the lead tend to contradict MOS:LEAD guidance to keep it clear and concise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
While I understand the "subjective interpretation" rationale, it's clear that the discussion GI60 links to indirectly encourages us to write promotional nonsense that is every bit as subjective. The problem with subjective interpretation in most Wikipedia articles is that it amounts to OR, but in this and other similar cases third-party reliable sources (which are generally preferred to film posters) could easily be found that only list the main cast and don't mention people who only cameoed in the film but are famous names (or perhaps only agreed to cameo in the film if their name appeared on the poster). And technically, the current wording of WP:FILMCAST agrees with me here: Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic., it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: ... cast lists in reliable sources, etc. In fact, out of billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links, the fifth doesn't apply, the current status quo of this article ignores the second, third and fourth are ignored: Kretschmann has more lines than both Elba and Atwell combined, and his character is named on-screen in this film (unlike theirs), and I'd be willing to guess that reliable sources give him much more weight as well. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
And while trying to find the name of the actor who played Strucker, I just now noticed that F1F93's interpretation of FILMCAST is employed in the cast section as well: why do Atwell and Elba need their own paragraphs, when said paragraphs contain nothing but character descriptions that are only at best half-accurate for this film? Atwell doesn't play the character described that way in this film -- she should not really be described that way for any film since the semi-canonical short films and TV shows contradict each other -- but really she is none of them in this film; she's a figment of Steve's imagination. This came up in the GOTG2 GA review, but these unsourced character descriptions are just as subjective as anything else in these articles, and are usually wrong to boot -- they should be removed.Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avengers: Age of Ultron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)