How do people feel about cutting the footnote and replacing the main body text with "Two years after the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron"? I'm gonna rewatch the film this weekend, but I don't think "the Battle of Sokovia" was mentioned either here or in any other film; it's actually somewhat counterintuitive, since events called "the Battle of [city/state name]" in the real world tend to take place between opposing armies, not between less than a dozen heroes and a robot. (The "Battle of New York" doesn't have this problem, which is why I think it's worth bringing up here but not in the Iron Man 3 article, even if that one has worse chronology problems as it explicitly sets The Avengers in June.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"Battle of Sokovia" was definitely mentioned. Also, this is a work of fiction, not the real world. It can be called whatever it likes in the fictional universe, and referencing the fight between the Avengers and Ultron is called the Battle of Sokovia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I know: that's why I don't have any problem with the nonsense naming in Game of Thrones ("Battle of the Bastards"!? Neither Littlefinger nor Sweetrobin nor Royce are bastards!); the problem is that when a nonsense fictional name is not used prominently within the fictional work itself (a complaint that can't be leveled at Game of Thrones but probably could here), our readers are not as likely to recognize it and more likely to blame us. That's the only reason I wrote everything after the semicolon. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It is also better to not add things to the plot summary that are not actually part of the plot, like any mention of Age of Ultron. That is why we have gone for the footnote. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you link to the discussion where that consensus was reached? It clearly was not on this talk page (as we do the same in a bunch of much older articles and apparently have for years), and if you are going to invoke a prior discussion like that it would be helpful to link it. Personally I would have likely opposed the proposal that led to the current status quo: mentioning in the first sentence the time lapse or the like between "the events depicted in Film X" would not hurt the plot summary as much as using relatively obscure in-universe terminology and attaching a footnote that really stands out the way these plot summaries are currently written (i.e., without inline citations) from where I am standing, and I think perhaps it might be worth reopening that discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in either of those about footnotes or proscribing use of real-world reference points like naming a prequel inline as opposed to using in-universe terminology. In fact, citation of COMMONSENSE in addition to a "rule" (which mostly exists to offer descriptive advice, but it's still an authoritative guideline) like FILMPLOT is really weird -- why would you use common sense to ignore a rule while at the same time following said rule? (Or do you mean that since FILMPLOT doesn't say anything about using in-universe terminology and footnotes, we are here using COMMONSENSE to ignore that fact and do so anyway? That doesn't strike me as COMMONSENSE at all.)
Anyway, I meant to ask if you could link me to the specific discussion you alluded where "we [went] for the footnote[s]" in this and related articles -- are you saying that that discussion never happened and it was just collective osmosis? I want to know who is "we", and how you got from the two WP: namespace pages you link to where this article's plot summary is.
It was an evolution from an easter egg link, such as wikilinking Battle of Sokovia to Age of Ultron, to mentioning it in text, such as the Battle of Sokovia as depicted in Age of Ultron, which some people didn't like, to the final form of a footnote. DonQuixote (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is something that has happended over dozens of articles likely involving multiple discussion on talk pages and in edit summaries, with many different editors involved. By "we", I mean the collective we and not anybody in particular. And I linked to FILMPLOT because it explains how we are supposed to come up with plot summaries (it doesn't involve adding information that isn't part of the plot, by the way) and the COMMONSENSE because there was a lot of that put into figuring out the footnote solution: many people were rightly not interested in including information from outside of the plot, and wanted an alternative solution. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@DonQuixote:@Adamstom.97: Okay, that makes sense, and the current status quo is definitely better than an easter egg link, but I personally would not have been among the some people (was it "most people"?) who wouldn't like the Battle of Sokovia as depicted in Age of Ultron. And I wonder if simply naming the film inline without the in-universe reference (the events of Age of Ultron; no "Battle of Sokovia" at all) was considered? I'd still like a link to a discussion (any one of the many) where some people didn't like naming the film in the text, mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't much of a discussion but rather an edit history thing. Not many people were bothered that the inline mention got turned into a footnote. If you want to start a discussion on inline vs footnote, go ahead. DonQuixote (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Judging from the sources at this time and date, a sentence or two seems appropriate. If there's more fallout that is covered, we can expand accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The only issue I seem to have with including it, is it seems to be circumstantial based on a Reddit user's experience. It doesn't seem like The Verge (or TorrentFreak which the Verge h/t) independently confirmed this leak was true based on the Reddit user's description. I'll see if any other reliable sources reporting on this were able to confirm the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
We should call her Scrapper 142 per dialogue in the plot section, although after the first instance the familiar 142 is enough. I also made Scrapper 142 more predominant in the Cast section for easy reference.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Write the years for Thor, Thor: The Dark World, GOTG, Big Trouble in Little China, Earth Girls Are Easy, The Avengers, Age of Ultron, Infinity War and its sequel, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Doctor Strange, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, 48 Hrs., Withnail and I, Planes, Trains and Automobiles, Flash Gordon, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Star Wars (on their first mention only).
"It is the sequel to 2011's Thor and 2013's Thor: The Dark World, and is the seventeenth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)." — Remove the second "is" after "and" and "the".
"The rest of the cast, including Blanchett as Hela, was confirmed in May 2016" — Shouldn't it be "were" instead if "was"?
"Cast" is a singular collective noun in this instance so was is correct.
"The film received highly positive reviews, with many critics declaring it the best film of the Thor trilogy and praising Waititi's direction, the cast's performances, action sequences, soundtrack, and humor." — Write it as "The film received highly positive reviews, with many critics declaring it the best of the Thor trilogy; praise was directed towards Waititi's direction, the cast's performances, action sequences, soundtrack, and humor." You've already mentioned it being a film at the start of the sentence, so no need a second time.
Removed "film" but did not add in semi-colon or slight reword there to avoided "directed" right before "direction".
Just a suggestion, not necessary to resolve this: You can make a note on how the film incorporates footage from Doctor Strange in here. As I said, not necessary to resolve this. Your call.
The footage is not from Doctor Strange. As you will see when you get to the production section, that footage was filmed by Waititi for this film.
"Hela arrives in Asgard, destroying its army and killing the Warriors Three; resurrects the ancient dead who once fought with her, including her giant wolf Fenris; and appoints the Asgardian Skurge as her executioner." — Can do with some rephrasing, like "Hela arrives in Asgard, destroys its army while also killing the Warriors Three, resurrects the ancient dead who once fought with her including her giant wolf Fenris, and appoints the Asgardian Skurge as her executioner."
Wikilink wormholes and gladiator for those who might not be aware of the terms at first.
"The decision to make Hela related to Thor, as opposed to Loki as in the comics and Norse mythology," — Better to remove the second instance of "as". Just "The decision to make Hela related to Thor, as opposed to Loki in the comics and Norse mythology" will do.
"Waititi consulted with theoretical physicist Clifford Johnson, who previously consulted on the second season of Agent Carter, on space travel." — Can be rephrased as "Waititi consulted with theoretical physicist Clifford Johnson, who had previously consulted on the second season of Agent Carter, on space travel." Can you try some other word besides consulted to avoid repetition of the term at close proximity? Also wikilink "space travel" like wormholes and gladiator above.
I've rearranged the info. I don't think we can avoid saying "consultant" twice, but I've moved the content further away, so it should help.
" and Chris Hemsworth suggested that Matt Damon, who Hemsworth knows, take on the role" — You can simply say, "whom he knew personally/professionally" instead. It should be "knew" as the casting of Damon has already taken place by now (past tense).
" Sandy Schaefer of Screen Rant felt it" — Wikilink Screen Rant here and in all references that are from the website.
Nothing much in the subsequent sections. As for the sources, do replace the capitalised words with just the starting letter being capitalised and the rest in small letters (eg: SPOILER in ref no 7, "SPIDER-MAN, THOR 3" in ref no 59, The entire title in ref no 116 and TODAY in ref no 142). Italicise TheWRAP in ref no 203, De-italicise Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association in ref no 214. Add the publisher name in ref no 219 and link the "publisher/work" portions in ref nos 220 and 221 (THR (Should be The Hollywood Reporter instead of just Hollywood Reporter and Variety).
@Ssven2: I've answered the last bits. I've also restored a bit of your editing (mainly the part in the release section about the old date) because that is good to mention in that section, even though it is stated earlier. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 Anyone feel like an encyclopedic discussion of the film is sorely lacking without at least a mention of this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There may be merit to such a discussion, particularly given Waititi's [recent comments about race relations in New Zealand, but that video doesn't seem like it is all that notable a source plus it doesn't give any explanation, elaboration, or general discussion on how the movie contains the themes that it does. Have you come across some better sources that discuss the issue? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, Chipman is the resident film critic at Geek.com and a featured columnist on ScreenRant, so "notability" is probably not the issue. A 15-second satyric rant within a single entry in a worst-to-best ranking of an arbitrary selection of "MCU" properties is not a great source for expanding the article, though. A quick googling of "Thor colonialism" brought up a bunch of other apparently more in-depth sources, but I admit I haven't read them yet. The Waititi interview is interesting, but seems to be about an only loosely-related issue; also, I'm a little more concerned with critical analysis of the film than first-party statement of intent, since at present the development section of this article appears to be already much more in-depth than the critical reception section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
If you wanted to put together a proposed paragraph or section maybe that would help everyone see what it could look like in the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Speedy close. Absolutely no evidence given. Completely incorrect per sources. And just plain silly. (non-admin closure) oknazevad (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose and speedy close. It's called Thor: Ragnarok by every source I have seen including the official sites  and the first 30 Google results on "Thor Ragnarok". All subtitled films in Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe films have a colon before the subtitle like the official name. We don't invent titles just because a user thinks they make more sense than the real title. The official poster omits the colon but that's because "Thor" and "Ragnarok" are on separate lines, and they also have different styling. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.