Jump to content

Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.188.21.128 (talk) at 21:20, 24 December 2013 (→Baron Von Strucker has a role in the sequel.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Copy and paste move

Prince of Peas (talk · contribs) copy and pasted this article into mainspace, see this diff -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richiekim (talk · contribs) copy and pasted this article into mainspace, see this diff -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richiekim (talk · contribs) copy and pasted this talk page into main talk, see this diff -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new Kevin Feige quote

This just seems like a typical non-answer from someone trying to dodge a question. I don't think it really enhances anyone's understanding of the film's development, or adds anything to the article. It seems to me like it's enough to note that EW reported that the character will be in the film, and then if they happen to be written out of a later draft we can note that then. But I don't think a "maybe, maybe not, things change!" quote really belongs. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. It is already stated the its a draft, and by definition drafts can change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have removed it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver

Is it worth noting at all that Quicksilver has just been announced to appear in X-Men: Days of Future Past? Only reason I ask is because of the whole character rights situation, as Fox and Marvel Studios can both use the character, but Marvel can only use it without alluding to "mutants". It has been mentioned in sources about the predicament and what it would mean now in regards to Avengers 2 as it will be released after DoFP. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, once we know more about what this means for Avengers 2.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean anything for Avengers, Fox owns the rights to Quicksilver, Marvel owns the rights to Pietro Maximoff, neither can refer to him by the other name. They were saying this back before The Avengers even began production. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that they both own the rights to both names, but that they each can only reference certain aspects of the character's history. It is probably worth mentioning, but only when we have reliable sources indicating the specifics of how this influences his role in this film. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait until there is concrete information about how this actually affects the portrayal of Quicksilver in this movie, because right now we can only speculate or surmise what they will do. Spidey104 23:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was similar to Fandraltastic's: that Marvel was allowed to use the character as long as they didn't reference Magneto or that he was a "mutant". That's why I brought it up. But as everyone is saying, we will have to wait until more info is known for Avengers 2 obviously, but if both studios are going to use the character, it will be interesting to see how they approach this so the general public does not get confused. Just wanted to get the situation out there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor update: It appears Joss plans to continue on with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saoirse Ronan

As stated in the sources, this appears only to be rumor at this point. Unfortunately, these types of films are prone to rumor and speculation. Some pick up traction in the press and a few are even addressed by those involved. However, I do not think it is appropriate to include them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If we did include this rumor, then we are essentially saying, let's allow all rumors on to the page. If she is eventually brought on for the role, we can add a bit on how she was widely considered for the part before getting it, if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had placed this information in the article figuring that Ronan's statement regarding the rumors lent some level of credence to them. That was a bit of a fine line and upon consideration, one that should have required more patience on my part for a formal casting announcement. Chalk it up to over-enthusiasm for seeing a favorite character finally appearing in a live action film. Mea culpa. Hopefully by the time of the San Diego Comic-Con International there will be official word on the role. Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, regarding the recent news about Elizabeth Olsen taking over the role, is Bleeding Cool acceptable as a source? They are citing an anonymous source same as Superhero Hype! did when they first reported that Saoirse Ronan was Marvel's "prototype" for the character. If so, does this make the Superhero Hype! article reliable and should it now be included with her initial reaction?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Hollywood Reporter is saying that Marvel is in talks with Olsen.Richiekim (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but since THR doesn't independently confirm anything about Ronan, we should leave it out for now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Wikipedia:Article incubator/The Avengers 2 → The Avengers 2 – Article has reached 25 references Richiekim (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no 25 reference rule just something we used in the past but I'm beginning to think we can afford to wait for more considering the media attention this film is getting and the fact that we're still a year away from when filming is scheduled to begin. Although the media attention might make it more notable now, it just seems 25 references isn't what it used to be for these types of film. I don't know.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no evidence that The Avengers 2 is the name of the film, given the rest of the films that are subtitled it seems unlikely. If anything it would be moved to United The Avengers Sequel. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:COMMONNAME does seem to be The Avengers 2. The press release from Marvel about RDJ's casting indicates that the official name is Marvel's The Avengers 2, although that could change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia page for Thor: The Dark World was originally titled Thor 2 before Marvel officially announced the title of the film, so The Avengers 2 would be an acceptable title, as that's what the majority of the press are referring to it as, even though I believe it's likely that Marvel will add a subtitle to the film. Richiekim (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait a little bit longer as well, as I'm sure it will start gain some more media traction. As for the name, I think The Avengers 2 will be fine for the moment, but I do think it will have a subtitle, as in Marvel's The Avengers: (something). I think Feige even stated somewhere that he would be "surprised" if it didn't, and he was a fan of how Star Wars has labeled their films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so but copy-paste moves are never the answer. In the future, if consensus is that the article is ready, please request a technical move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent announcement of the full title and the villain for the film it is getting "more media traction." More people are going to be looking for information on this film now, and I think a lot of people are going to try creating articles for it if they don't find one. So I think it should be moved to full article now. Spidey104 17:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we should just WP:BEBOLD, and then deal with its merits.TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. I don't really see any fall back from it. We will only just be adding info here, so why not be doing it in the article space? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also name is Marvel's The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can try requesting a technical move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not just use the drop down arrow, select "Move", then in the selection to where to move it, select "Article" and put the name (as where we want to move is just a redirect)? Won't that move the page history and talk page with it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can try but it might not work because of the redirect.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will give it a shot right now to see. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't work. Got "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." I can submit a request to be moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we are in business: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#movereq-Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Avengers: Age of Ultron - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-appearing cast

Joss Whedon recently stated that Coulson will not be in this film. I already added this information to the Phil Coulson article, but I wasn't sure if I should add this information to the "Cast" section of this article or not. It is news about this film, but it's news of something not happening. It's not a black-or-white include or not-include situation. What do you think? Spidey104 20:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A non-appearance is not notable unless he/she was previously scheduled to appear.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 July 2013

There is no "the" in the title of the film. It is simply titled, "Avengers: Age of Ultron".

The logo: http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/avengers-age-of-ultron-logo-slice.jpg 24.121.188.207 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the full title is Marvel's The Avengers: Age of Ultron per source from Marvel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up a question I have wondered for a while: if the full title is Marvel's The Avengers: Age of Ultron why is the article's title only "The Avengers: Age of Ultron" (and why is the article for Marvel's The Avengers only "The Avengers")? Spidey104 00:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the WP:COMMONNAME is "The Avengers: Age of Ultron", we do not use official name unless it is also the common name (ex. Dr. Strangelove not Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, in all the new press releases I've noticed the title is always just "Avengers: Age of Ultron". No "The" and no "Marvel's". Look at the James Spader press release and how the first film is always listed as "Marvel's The Avengers" while the new one is always just "Avengers: Age of Ultron". If it does say Marvel's it's always outside the quote marks, unlike the first film which always has it inside the marks. Same with the new Bradley Cooper press release. At the bottom you can see it's only "Avengers: Age of Ultron". There's also of course the official logo that doesn't have the "The" and the official Marvel page which has no "The" either. The only time I've seen the title given as "Marvel's The Avengers: Age of Ultron" is in the original press release announcing the title (although even the title of that article gives it without the "The"), but all the ones after that are different. I really think we need to change it to what the more recent ones show. No "Marvel's" and definitely no "The". --DocNox (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Definitely something to look into. I wouldn't be too rash at the moment, as we will still be getting more press info officially from Marvel. I would say look to third party sources, but their stylings are all different across the board, so they aren't much help. I do see what you are saying, and we can definitely change if needed, but I'm still inclined to err towards the official announcement release for the name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I almost made this an actual request move (still might eventually). It just seems to me "Avengers: Age of Ultron" is by far the common name, at least when it comes to official sources, and that the guy who wrote that first announcement probably just screwed up since it's the only time it's ever been done that way. --DocNox (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was a screw up, because to me, it seems that they are just shortening it. Again, let's just wait to see what else Marvel gives us, and (cautiously) third party sources. We still have less than two years until this releases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're just shortening it even when they go out of their way to refer to the first film by its full name every single time? No, I'm not buying it. That James Spader press release and the different ways they wrote the two films' titles pretty much settled it for me. I can wait, but how many more does it really take to prove that that's just the title and not a "shortening"? They've consistently not used a "The" outside of that one source. --DocNox (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"commonly called The Avengers 2"

Is this really necessary in the lead? It has a title now, so there is no need to refer to it by the provisional "The Avengers 2" any longer. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has a title but people still call it The Avengers 2, and is still referred to as such by reliable sources for simplicity sake or just to identify with general audiences. Whatever the case maybe, it used enough to warrant inclusion to put readers first.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the numerical was used purely as a placeholder until the title was revealed. We have a redirect from The Avengers 2 to satisfy the reader and the lead mentions that it's a sequel to The Avengers. Including it in the lead is redundant and looks unprofessional. We don't include provisional working titles for other films once titles are known. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its more than just a working title, its an everyday title. We use them so when a reliable author or someone affiliated with the film uses the term, readers now what they're talking about. Example: the title for Thor: The Dark World was announced over a year ago but sources less than 24-hours ago still call it Thor 2.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should be removed from Thor's lead too. Completely unneccesary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, readers first.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per what's being talked about here, and in the discussion above with Spidey, it should most likely add (commonly called The Avengers 2 or The Avengers: Age of Ultron). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved to WT:FILM#The Avengers 2, Thor 2, Captain America 2, etc., in article lead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes just saw that. Agree with the redirect templates. But should something be stated, like on The Avengers page, that says (or simply The Avengers: Age of Ultron)? Because without the Marvel's would be a more common name when referenced to. (And I'm sure the media will find another way to reference it, such as Avengers: AoU etc.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with or "simply The Avengers: Age of Ultron".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

While I can see that it is reasonable to believe someone searching for The Avengers: Age of Ultron, might type Age of Ultron. I do not think someone looking for the comic book, will type The Avengers: Age of Ultron. So is the hatnote on this page necessary?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see your point. You are correct that most people searching for this film, may just quickly type Age of Ultron. Also, by having it here, as it is right on top, people may think the film and comic storylines are similar. I believe I added it when the subtitle was first announced, as a precaution, but now that they are known to be separate storylines, it may not really have a purpose here. But definitely on the Age of Ultron page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely an article about a picture which hasn't even been made yet can only be an advertisement?

Baska436 (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, you can be mistaken.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't attended a ComicCon since the 90's, but I'd be willing to bet there's several thousand people at that one show who'd disagree with you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evans

Here is confirmation that Evans will be back. I'm a bit strapped for time so if someone else could add it to the article (and other relevant articles) that would be great. Cheers -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even say "Evans confirms he will be back". The main focus is his directorial debut. I feel until he or the makers confirm he is indeed in it, he shouldn't be placed in. Rusted AutoParts 00:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very reliable source stating that he will return, and laying out the schedule for his return. Whether or not it comes from his mouth is irrelevant. This is how all film articles have always been handled. -Fandraltastic (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a poor way to do so. It does not say his return is confirmed. The word confirmed is not present, therefore, it's speculative. Rusted AutoParts 00:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word confirmed would be superfluous here, the statement is their confirmation. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No source has to use the word "confirm", to be considered verifiable. However the information does seem to be based on hearsay due to use of the phrase "I hear". So the questions becomes does the hearsay of reliable source such as Deadline count?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is simply Fleming's "informal" style of writing, as he starts many of his articles like that (Ex. 1 2). We use his articles fairly often across the film project. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as we could know, This is what Fleming is saying. It might not be what Evans, or Whedon or Feige are saying. Get what I'm saying? Rusted AutoParts 03:27 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Evans, Whedon or Feige don't have to say anything. Per WP:V, all that matters is the information comes from a reliable source. Deadline is a reliable source. To me the questions boils down to: Based on the author's language, is the information sufficient for inclusion? Or as Fandraltastic suggested just reflective of the author's colloquial tone.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The headline of Fleming's article unambiguously says Evans is reprising his role in Avengers 2. It doesn't have a rumor or report disclaimer or anything like that. Richiekim (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, still doesn't mean this is confirmed. All it says is that he's making his directing debut before picking up the shield. There's is not one mention he is confirmed. Rusted AutoParts 13:32 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Why are you stuck on the word "confirm"? Flemming made a definitive statement; "I’ve heard Evans plans to direct the movie this fall, completing production before he picks up his shield to play Captain America in The Avengers: Age Of Ultron." In other words; Before Chris Evans picks up his shield to play Captain America in The Avengers: Age Of Ultron, he plans to direct the movie.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what matters is why did Flemming choose to prequalify his statement with "I've heard" as if to remove any responsibility for making it. Yes, it could be just his writing style but who knows or he could be saying that the information comes from an unofficial source. Though if the information does come from an unofficial source, it must be trusted enough for him to report it or he would be jeopardizing his journalistic integrating.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading it, the "I've heard" part seems to be related to the mention of directing the film rather than about him taking part in Avengers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It reads that Fleming has heard that Evans will direct this film, before appearing in Avengers: AoU, as he previously had not plans for a project before hand. That's how I read it, and think on Fleming meant it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else to add to this discussion? It seems consensus is to include the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me. Upon closer look I agree with Darkwarriorblake, the wording does seem to be more related to 1:30 Train.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could just wait until the D23 expo happens. I'd be surprised if they didn't announce a few things there. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but we also are wording it correctly by saying "In August 2013, Deadline reported..." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a week since this discussion started. If nobody has anything of substance to add then there is no need to prolong it any further.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving sources

I just wanted to say that we all seem to be doing a good job formatting our references. However please try to archive your sources as well. I know WebCite is going through some hardships (donate if you can) but until they go away, it is still a valuable resource in preventing linkrot. Its not difficult and only takes a minute. Just go to webcitation.org and click "Archive" at the top of the page, enter the url of the source, your email address and hit "Submit". Its that easy. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk)

Returning cast members

Just wondering. Do we consider it necessary to note every time an actor from the first film's return is confirmed in the pre-production section? It's good to have those references and wait until that confirmation before adding them to the cast section of the page. But these confirmations don't appear to be notable aspects of the film's pre-production process, as they come in somewhat arbitrarily. Mark Ruffalo tweeting that he'd be back in March 2013 and Deadline confirming that Evans would be back in an article about a different film seem irrelevant to this film's production. It's not as though those actors signed new contracts around those dates or that their commitment to the film changed on those dates. And we're bound to have another half-dozen or so of these types of "confirmations". It seems to me that including those actors in the cast section with those references is enough.

Downey would be the exception, since he actually did sign a new contract and whether or not he would return was a topic of interest covered by a variety of reliable sources. -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. This film is its own animal. So we should know when each of its participants came aboard, at least publicly.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fiege and Whedon have been talking about the return of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye.

http://screenrant.com/avengers-2-age-of-ultron-hawkeye/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.24.247 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whedon did not mention Renner, only Hawkeye.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I don't it is notable to simply include a report in the production section that we determine is reliable. After all, they could have been cast months earlier. We should only include the report if it pinpoints the timeframe when the actors were brought onboard or makes an official announcement from the studio, actor or filmmaker.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Johansson

The source for Scarlett Johansson is not reliable. It just assumes that she will be back, it never contains any information saying that she will definitely be in it. This article obviously just assumes that all cast from the first film will return for the second. A better source is needed before she can be added to the cast list, otherwise it should just remain in prose that MTV claimed she would return, but that it remains unconfirmed. Frogkermit (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a report. If she isn't returning, they wouldn't say "Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow". Chris Evans source is something I question ,yet it remains. For now, let's just leave Evans and Johansson be, as more sources will definetly be on the way. Rusted AutoParts 01:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is THR was doing there own reporting on Evans and could easily find out additional information, whereas MTV was merely covering a published story and wouldn't be privy to new information not published in the original.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus since on Deadline or Collider (not sure which, but I've definitely seen it) there has been a video interview with Evans where he confirms that he is returning, but this MTV article for Scarlett Johansson is mainly about Scarlet Witch, and, as I have mentioned previously, they are just assuming that all the cast are returning, hence putting Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow, it never actually gives proper confirmation she has signed on. Frogkermit (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent additions of Hemsworth and Taylor, it seems some sources are playing fast and loose with their information. We should scrutinize these more before adding them to the article. It would seem, especially in the case of Taylor, that the trades would pick this up not a passing mention on a music website.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This Contact Music source, is one I don't believe to be one to "confirm" the inclusion, only using their assumptions that the same actors will return. It's all in their wording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we go ahead and remove Scarlett Johansson from this and the MCU page then, until we get a more reliable source, as it just assumes that she is returning the same way the contact music source assumes all the cast is returning. Frogkermit (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this, if others are. I agree with you Frog (and Triiiple), that it seems many news sites are just jumping on the fact that since it is mentioned that Black Widow is back, so is Johansson, as well as all the previous characters in the last film. As such, I believe that would be synthesizing on their part? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already removed Johansson.Richiekim (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this video, Evans confirms he begins shooting A:AOU in March 2014, confirming he has signed on, so can we re-add him to the cast list now? http://collider.com/chris-evans-captain-america-2-sequel-interview/ Frogkermit (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hemsworth Source

As of writing this, the source provided for Hemsworth's involvement is an article from Empire Online about Elizabeth Olsen's potential involvement. I don't think the source is confirming Hemsworth is involved, they just listed the actors that portrayed the Avengers. If no one can find a better source, I'm taking it off the page.
LoveWaffle (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting increasing difficult to enhance the article if every source discussing returning Avengers is immediately thrown out. Rusted AutoParts 17:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one has been added, the USA Today source. If not, the IGN article on Spader confirms it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but this is the fifth time that Johansson has been removed from the list. It's rather annoying if we must wait for a statement from Johansson herself. Rusted AutoParts 17:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it is all speculation so far by news outlets. We can wait. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Variety confirms Hemsworth will be back in their Spader story, that's probably a stronger source than IGN. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the source that IGN has got it's information from, as cited in the article, http://marvel.com/news/story/21099/exclusive_avengers_age_of_ultron_casts_james_spader_as_the_films_legendary_villain it doesn't mention anything about Hemsworth, and the Variety article still doesn't have any evidence to back up their claims, it is just new site assumption that the leads will all reprise their roles. Frogkermit (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that IGN and Variety are both using something else from Marvel for their confirmation, because the IGN source states: "Marvel Studios made the announcement today, adding that Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth will also reprise their roles as Captain America and Thor, respectively, for the sequel." The key is the "adding" immediately after the link of "Marvel Studios made the announcement today" which takes you to the press release, as it means that this info is coming from Marvel themselves. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, is IGN actually considered a reputable source? The Variety article is the only one that seems to work, but that they are the only one that seems to make any mention of Hemsworth returning might indicate an error on their part. I like the wait idea.
Also, regarding Rusted AutoParts' initial objection, the issue wasn't the article, but the interpretation of the article. Saying Olsen has the acting chops to hang with someone like Hemsworth is not a confirmation that Hemsworth is in the movie. It's that difficult to expand the article because the page was created significantly early for a film. Again, wait.
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IGN is a perfectly reputable source. And whenever info is not confirmed, or still rumor, they have stated as such. As this is not here, I believe it to be fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But am I the only one that finds it suspect that Hemsworth's involvement in the film, especially given that he's one of the main characters, would be "confirmed" by being buried at the end of a story that has nothing to do with him? Also taking into consideration that Marvel released a press statement as recent as yesterday that makes no mention whatsoever of Hemsworth returning for Avengers 2.
LoveWaffle (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I find it strange, especially as there have been reports that Hemsworth was in two minds about signing up, that Marvel wouldn't unveil it in a press release, or at least a joint one for Chris Evans too, seen as they are the leads, instead of just having it as a small add on of the casting of the villain. Frogkermit (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frog, it seems it's just you and Waffle that have the issue with this. I mean, a source says that they're returning, you immediately question it and remove it. Are you expecting some sort of formal confirmation from Hemsworth or Johansson? Also, they're under contract. Rusted AutoParts 00:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand both of your concerns Frog and Waffle, but the wording is acceptable and usable in this case. It is not like previously, where news outlets were using synthesis on their parts, saying actors would return. As far as I know, all signings/confirmations are not always done through a press release like Spader got. Most of the time, it is how it was presented in the IGN or Variety source. To Rusted, they may be under contract, but that does not necessarily mean they will return in this film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "synthesis" here, but, if these sources do in fact confirm Hemsworth's involvement, it would be entirely different from the confirmation of every other actor that's appeared in a recent Marvel movie. While not all come from press statements Marvel releases to the public to their audience, it comes through a press release given to a source like Deadline or THR that then writes the article about the actor's involvement. Marvel confirming an actor's involvement in a film by just including his name at the very bottom of an article or press release that has nothing to do with that actor is so far unheard of.
Also, to answer RAP's question, yes, I am expecting some formal confirmation of Hemsworth, Johansson, and every other actor that is involved in this film. It's the standard we've come to expect.
LoveWaffle (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IGN is a reliable source, so it's safe to say that we have a valid source, not some small time news agency. Rusted AutoParts 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still find it odd that IGN is considered a valid source since their name is associated with shaky journalistic integrity, but the issue is not that IGN said it, it's that the usual players in this have not.
LoveWaffle (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. The news article is specifically about Spader. And they also mentioned the returning actors that have already been confirmed. Downey, Evans, Ruffalo and Jackson. Hemsworth was in that group too, with Johansson and Renner still unmentioned (I'm certain Johansson is confirmed, but there isn't a source everyone trusts yet). So with that said, it seems Hemsworth is in as of now. And the verdict is still out on Renner. Rusted AutoParts 23:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. The news article is about Spader, not Hemsworth, so Hemsworth's involvement being confirmed in an article about Spader is highly irregular. This is especially so when the sources talking about Hemsworth's involvement are not only few but not among the sources that typically confirm such things. What's more likely - IGN is privy to information a source like Deadline isn't and Marvel has not yet made public, or IGN, assuming as we all do that the entire cast will return, listed Hemsworth with other actors confirmed to return without double checking their sources? I'm inclined to believe the latter.
LoveWaffle (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you believe news sites aren't allowed to state whether or not an actor is returning? Rusted AutoParts 23:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe what news sources report on needs to be held under some scrutiny. Especially when one news source says something that isn't being reported on much anywhere else. Especially when that one news source is IGN.
LoveWaffle (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources stated Johansson was confirmed to return, yet they were removed, if so many websites were stating a false positive, then they all lose their credibility, something I consider a drastic thought. Rusted AutoParts 00:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you keep reading, I think the issue isn't with the sources but how you read them.
LoveWaffle (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's what you feel is more trusting. If IGN or Variety aren't reliable, than what is? Rusted AutoParts 01:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, definitely not IGN. But reading a source wrong has no bearing on how reliable it is. Regardless, this interview Hemworth gave with E! settles the issue.
LoveWaffle (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the E! source does settle it, but I don't know where you are believing IGN is unreliable. They are perfectly reliable for news information, especially for info used in pages like this. And if they report on a rumor, they state that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Avengers 2 redirects here.

...is completely useless. Why is it even there? No other sequel titled differently has that. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's there per consensus, see above.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta agree with Taylor, where else would The Avengers 2 be redirecting? If I type in Isidious 2 I expect to be taken to Insidious Chapter 2, I just can't be bothered typing the whole thing out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because you are aware of what you are looking for. If there are published articles that only refer to the film as The Avengers 2, an uninformed reader might not be aware that The Avengers: Age of Ultron is the same film. Sidenote: the project page discussion has been archived.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They might not be aware of it... but the hatnote is still not serving a purpose. It doesn't distinguish anything. Your argument that "they might not know The Avengers Age of Ultron is the same film" doesn't make sense, because the hatnote is totally unrelated to that. It's just telling you that something redirects here - not that "The Avengers 2" is the same as "The Avengers: Age of Ultron." Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a history; that information was in the article lead but editors came to a concensus that it would be better served as a hatnote.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's get new consensus, shall we? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect template should stay, or The Avengers 2 should be added back to the lead, either one. It should stay because it was known since the reveal of the sequel as The Avengers 2, as well as official stated by Marvel when Downey resigned. Only at Comic-Con did the title change to its official one, but published articles had been referencing it as Avengers 2 until then. So, as TriiipleThreat stated, an uninformed reader comes here to search "The Avengers 2" and gets taken to this page, would not know they are the same. And we can't assume they'd stay on the page long enough to see in the second sentence of the lead, "intended sequel to The Avengers", because even then, possibly knowing that Downy will be in Avengers 3, they could think this page is for that film, as The Avengers 2 is not used anywhere in the article. WP:RF - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that "The Avengers 2" takes them here should be a pretty big red flag that they've found the right article. So I gotta agree that it serves no purpose in the hatnote. Nor do I think it should be in the lead or anywhere else in the article except for direct quotes where it's more than likely being used informally. The makers of the film made a choice not to have "2" be in the official title and we should respect that. That goes for all the Marvel sequel articles doing this. I can't think of any other sequel articles on Wikipedia that does this kind of thing. That's because we flat out say it's the sequel in the lead. People aren't stupid, they'll figure it out. --DocNox (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just for readers who came here through the redirect but for readers that are already here yet the when they check the source theres no evidence of 'Age of Ultron'. Also we are respecting the filmmakers but also the common vernacular where it is still very much being used. Sequel could be any film in a series of film so we should be specific, we shouldn't make any assumptions on behalf of the readers. While those familiar with the film might know what we are talking about, those unfamiliar may not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then just change where it says sequel to "second film" or something. "The Avengers 2" is wrong and not necessary. --DocNox (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wrong, it's colloquial.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which means it has no place in the lead. Otherwise why not list informal alternate titles for every film --DocNox (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it's used enough in the media and in everyday language to the point it deserves a mention in the lead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People call Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones Star Wars 2 pretty often and there's no hatnote. I think people would use common sense. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick google news search, I dont see that it is being used to the same extent.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a hatnote on that page, but that's because there's possible confusion there. There isn't here. --DocNox (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hatnote there. But it's not just stating the obvious - it serves a purpose. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I strongly believe that alternate informal titles belong as redirects only. Plenty of people called Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest "Pirates 2", I even remember TV spots where the voice over guy actually called it that, but it's not in that article's lead. It doesn't need to be. Look at the references on the Star Trek Into Darkness article and see how often "Star Trek 2" shows up, but it's not in the lead there either. If for whatever reason we do decide to put "The Avengers 2" in the lead on this article it needs to be made clear it's an informal title only and in no way official, no matter how "common" it is. But it definitely doesn't belong as a hatnote if there's no other article to confuse it with. (For example the one at Captain America: The Winter Soldier is absolutely fine. It has a purpose because there's another movie actually called "Captain America II".) --DocNox (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I'd prefer it in the lead over a hatenote and there's plenty of was to distinguish it from official title, such as 'commonly called' or 'colloquially called', etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Commonly called" isn't very good since it doesn't distinguish it as informal. "Colloquially called" is a bit better, but I still don't like it. Maybe "sometimes colloquially called". Ideally however we could just make it clear in the lead that it's the second film in the series without calling it "The Avengers 2". Everybody knows that all the colloquial title means anyway. And once full on promotion with the official title starts it really won't be needed. --DocNox (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, "also known as" makes it sound somehow official. --DocNox (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, 'known as' could be construed as a title, 'called' is a sobriquet. Also a sequel can be any film in a series, it's not specific enough besides the point is to directly match readers with what is stated in publications.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said clarify. I would agree that right now simply calling it a sequel in the article is not clear. And that's all someone using "The Avengers 2" colloquially means anyway. That it's the second Avengers. I don't see the need to make it match exactly with publications who are also just using it in that sense. Readers understand that. --DocNox (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could settle for "It is intended to be the second Avengers film following 2012's Marvel's The Avengers and the eleventh installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. --DocNox (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what now of Thor: The Dark World, because that had the hatnote as well. And has since been readded to the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see it (and any other relevant Marvel titles) edited to match this one. I was personally waiting to see if anyone would contest this change before doing it. --DocNox (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is a little different than this and CapTWS. This franchise has had a third film announced for it, while, as you mentioned, there is actually a Cap II film which could be confusing. I don't even think we have to include the Thor 2 part because no other media has this name, and seeing "sequel to 2011's Thor" won't throw anyone off because no other sequels, for now, have been announced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Cap situation is indeed tricky. We can't exactly say it's "the second Captain America film", but maybe we could say "the second Marvel Studios Captain America film" instead. Though I'm not sure any edit is really needed at the moment. On the Iron Man articles I would see it as a chance to link to the Iron Man in film article. For example on the Iron Man 3 article it could be changed to "It is the third Iron Man film following 2008's Iron Man and 2010's Iron Man 2, and the seventh installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe". I suppose we could do something similar on the Cap article and link to Captain America in film#Marvel Cinematic Universe. And with Thor I don't really see the difference with this article. We would be replacing the "commonly called Thor 2" bit with "second Thor film". --DocNox (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only other article that could be changed is Thor: The Dark World, it's not needed anywhere else. The hatenote at CTW is sufficient and the titles of the Iron Man films are straight forward.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible I'm over thinking it. --DocNox (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was going to say what Triiiple did. I think ThorTDW is the only one to examine to change. Should we move this discussion to that talk page? - 05:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Spader

Here are some quotes from Spader. Adding here, because the first set is interesting. Is him talking about the photos and scans and indication that he may actually be in Ultron (albeit, probably how Downey is in partially built suits for Iron Man)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove Aaron Taylor-Johnson's casting addition

He was not OFFICIALLY announced by anyone at Marvel/The Avengers Cast. He is still in talks to play Quicksilver and is not officially signed on to play him.

This is not a source, and the dude who wrote the article is only referencing back to his talks with various websites about the character. not an official announcement.

Link: http://latino-review.com/2013/10/exclusive-its-official-aaron-johnson-cast-as-quicksilver-in-avengers-age-of-ultron/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.17.148 (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article, it appears that they have new information that nobody else is yet privy to, because of the use of the word "exclusive". The problem is that author then fails to follow it up with how he received this information and precedes directly into giving some backstory about Olsen and Taylor-Johnson. So it all comes down to the reputation of Latino Review, which I would say is weakly reliable at best. I wouldn't mind waiting for a more reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have always questioned Latino Review's reliability, because they always say they have the "exclusive" but never claim how they got this information, as I know they don't receive exclusives like Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, and comic-based sites most of the time. Even if this request was not made, I would have most likely reverted anyways until, like you said, a more reliable source is released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you. It seems as though an official announcement is close, because of the shooting date(s) (ScarJo says January 2014, and Chris Evans and Sam Jackson have said March 2014). They may even appear at NYCC, but it's unconfirmed, but would be really cool.

Renner

This discussion is closed

Since Locke Cole (talk · contribs) seems intent on not following WP:BRD and avoiding discussion, I guess I'll have to start it. The MTV article traces back to Perez Hilton, a gossip columnist, who makes an unattributed claim.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually multiple sources listing Renner as being cast as Hawkeye in the film. I chose this one specifically because it discusses Renner, and isn't a situation where it's just a footnote to an article about another member of the cast. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you pick one that is not unreliable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You choose, apparently using Google search to find sources is too hard:
I still strongly disagree that the MTV source is not reliable, but whatever. BTW, those last two are from the past week (and one of those sources is already used in the article for verifying another actor in the movie, IIRC). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on you. My notes are in italics.
These have all been has been brought up before and shot down by different editors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Triiiple. Locke Cole, you have no reliable sources here that definitively state Renner is returning. All are using WP:SYNTH on their part, assuming Renner is returning. Because Whedon stated that Hawkeye would have a bigger role, these news agencies automatically assumed Renner would be reprising the role. No info has been released either way, and saying that Renner has a contract is not proof either, if going that route. So until we get that confirmation, either officially, or in the way Olsen was confirmed, we can't add him here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH applies to our usage of sources, not the sources themselves. All of these sources definitively list Renner as being in the cast of the movie, and his role as being Hawkeye. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can attack the credibility of a source, but simply dismissing the source outright because you don't know where they got their information is new to me. Especially considering one of these sources is already used in the article to justify another cast member. Unless there is some further valid reasoning for excluding this casting, I'll be requesting it be added to the page. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll be declining that request. There is not one rock solid source stating he's back without a trivial statement that lists the cast of the first. We have interview sources from everyone else, so since there isn't any word on Renner, were not adding him. Be patient. Rusted AutoParts 08:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The valid reason has already been stated. All sources you provided have assumed Renner is returning. This happened for Hemsworth and Johansson as well, before they stated in interviews they would be returning. Renner has not personally commented on this, Marvel has not stated he is returning, only the character, and no other cast members have stated he is back, such as Jackson did in announcing Olsen's casting. And with the Perez Hilton source from May, that is unreliable as they only state "Our sources". Who are these sources? We don't know, so we can't count them as reliable. If they further expanded and said these sources were a Marvel rep or possibly a press release, then it would be fine. But because of the ambiguity, and the anonymous nature, the source as a whole is unreliable. So I would second Rusted's decision and decline this as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why it's dangerous to start second guessing sources. We have sources, multiple, and some already used as reliable sources in this very article. This would be like arguing against the inclusion of a source saying atoms smashed together produces energy just because you haven't seen it done yourself. You're introducing original research (that he is not, in fact, a part of the cast) by excluding him from the article.
I've met the burden of proof for inclusion. The onus is now on the naysayers to find sources saying his casting is still up in the air to support their assertions. Otherwise, please step away and allow this to be included. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were not gonna "step away" because you want to be right. The burden is on you to accept we don't post rumours. Rusted AutoParts 20:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the burden has shifted to you guys to find sources saying the role of "Hawkeye" is still not cast. And the moment you guys find something that says "rumored to be" or "still not cast", let me know, because so far the number of sources is staggering. Here's some more:
And there's plenty more where those came from. And I'd understand the issue with trusting the source if I was just providing ONE source, but so far (unless you're alleging a conspiracy that these articles are all written by the same person) we have multiple independent sources stating, matter of factly, that he is cast for this movie in this specific role. If you want to start hyper-analyzing the sources (which I strongly discourage, but hey, what you do with your free time is your business), by all means, please start contacting these individual authors demanding where they get their information. In the interim, I see no reason to exclude him from the cast listing. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not every piece of information in an article is equally reliable. We can trace where an author is receiving his information and where he is not. For instance, we can see in the Metro.uk article how the author claims that Olsen has been cast but not Renner. No attribution is given, maybe he has inside information, or maybe he is assuming that it is already understood. We just don't know. In cases like this it best wait for indisputable proof. Remember there is no deadline, we are not a news site, we can afford to wait. I do not see the harm in that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline cuts both ways. Right now our sources say he is cast. If we find this not to be true at some later date, we can change it, because it's a wiki. Again, the burden has shifted to you guys to justify excluding this given all the sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how consensus is determined. Also I still find it curious that all the major industry trades fail to mention Renner as being a part of the cast, but these secondary blog sites, which typically have less editorial accountability do.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I had consensus. I said I've met your burden, and now the argument is yours to make for excluding. Which it has. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, consensus seems to be that this "proof" is insufficient.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it now? Because one of the sources listed above is already used in the article. So it's a reliable enough source for one statement in the article, but not another? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? "We believe Person X for Information Y, but not for Information Z", it's like reverse synthesis here. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, see my above comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of these look like pretty weak sources: no press release by Marvel or Disney; no comment by Renner; not even speculation by a high quality trade like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. These are pretty much all bargain basement sources which may be acceptable for uncontroversial claims, but not for stating facts about living people. I agree with waiting for something more concrete. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this to be a BLP issue as it's not something controversial like an actor coming out as gay or undergoing gender modification. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whedon is looking forward to writing Hawkeye for the sequel, played by Jeremy Renner. “He did get possessed pretty early by a bad guy and sort of had to walk around scowley for most of the movie last time,” Whedon said. “So now it’s nice to actually have the character there and really see him interact with the other guys.”

— Marc Graser, Daily Variety
And there's a Variety source for you... 14 sources now. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whedon never mentioned Renner only Hawkeye. Also Graser said "played by Jeremy Renner". Nobody has played anything yet, he was referring to the fact that Renner played Hawkeye in the first film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whedon didn't need to mention Renner as Hawkeye. And the author said "Whedon is looking forward to writing Hawkeye for the sequel, played by Jeremy Renner.". In that full context, he's saying Hawkeye is going to be played by Jeremy Renner in the sequel. It couldn't be any plainer. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's simply you falling for the same thing your "sources" did: read into the sentence and made the assumption he's returning. Not confirmed as of yet, 4 to 1, case closed. Rusted AutoParts 09:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and you're making assumptions about the source that frankly you're not in a position to make. And unlike the other sources, this is Variety, which has a higher editorial standard than most typical website sources. The only thing "closed" here should be the discussion, you guys are dismissing reliable sources completely out of hand and engaging in OR by trying to assess individual sources own sources. Until you guys come up with some sources that say the role of Hawkeye isn't cast, I think we're done here. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author is basing his claim on Whedon's statements. The problem is Whedon never mentioned Renner, so the author's claim is inherently flawed. And Wikipedia is also not a dictatorship. So yes, we are done here, as you have failed sway consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add my voice to those who agree Locke Cole's sources are, at this point, assumptive and not definitive. This is an encyclopedia — whatever we put it in must be beyond reproach and impeachable, as much as humanly possible. If there's any uncertainly, as there is here, for something that will be made concrete in time, we don't include it. There's no deadline and we're not a news source. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, re Whedon's quote in Variety: When he said he he hadn't even written the movie, let alone was the movie cast. As with Alec Baldwin and Harrison Ford in The Hunt for Red October and its sequels, very high-profile actors in a role can change for many reasons (including, God forbid, death or accident).--Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This could be said of any of the cast listed so far, since shooting doesn't begin until next year. Should the entire cast section be removed? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very stupid. Variety said something, so we should quote it saying that Variety claimed this. If the information turned out to be wrong, then Variety is wrong, but it's still a highly reliable source and its statements are worth quoting. Shii (tock) 16:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cast listing doesn't lend itself to easily stating that a source claimed he was cast in the role, but would something like this work?
Or we could use a section of prose underneath the cast listing to more clearly state that certain sources are reporting it. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might be okay with that if it weren't so ambiguous. But we are not even in agreement that Variety made this claim. It said, "played by Jeremy Renner", not "to be played by". The author is speaking in past tense, which suggests he referring to the first film. This is made even more difficult because the author uses the statement to preface Whedon's comment about Hawkeye's role in both films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The words "the sequel" come right before it. What's ambiguous about that? Shii (tock) 19:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because nobody has played anything in the sequel as of yet and it speaks to a comparison of the first and second films. Keep in mind, this was just Comic-Con coverage, where no casting announcements were made. Previously, the only person confirmed to return was Downey, Jr.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are just second-guessing the source's unambiguous claim. Shii (tock) 19:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am just saying that if Graser, an accomplished writer, is making the claim you are suggesting, his use of tenses would be incorrect and that claim would be based on words never spoken by Whedon at the event he was covering.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and that claim would be based on words never spoken by Whedon at the event he was covering – err.... how do you know what the source is basing the statement on? Again, you're analyzing and assessing a source in a way I'm wholly unfamiliar with. Read over WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:V (the first paragraph, in particular; not the nutshell, just the first paragraph underneath speaks volumes to what we're discussing here). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author is making commentary on Whedon's remarks at Comic-Con. I agree its not about truth, Renner could very well be cast but these sources do not indisputably verify it. There are too many uncertainties about the source for us to do that. WP:CBALL says "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and that commentary is coming from this YouTube interview for Marvel (question occurs at 5:00, with answer following.) That answer is just Hawkeye. Previously in the interview (4:15), Whedon was mentioning other actors and if their traits are similar to their characters (ie Hemsworth thinks he is a God, Evans is a stick in the mud) but never mentions Renner once. Only the character. So that is the only info we can go off of. As Triiiple said, the Variety source is just making the claim as Renner previously played the part, not that he will be playing the part again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of ifs. I still do not see the need to force this information into the article at this time. We can afford to wait for more concrete verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush here. Seven (7) different editors have tried to add Renner to the cast section over the past two to three months, and all of them have been summarily reverted by a regular on this page. If this were a vote, as was alluded to above, this would be done and over with because more people have tried to add this to the article than has reverted repeatedly to remove it. I do think, in light of all the sources, and a handful of reliable sources out of those, that we have waited long enough to add something addressing it in the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right its all about consensus, which at this point seems to be in favor of non-inclusion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we're back

This discussion is a continuation of a previous closed discussion. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you guys are playing the WP:OWN game here, I've decided to go solicit every editor that's tried to add Jeremy Renner to the article (and been reverted by one of you guys). I've tried to be cordial and reasonable here, writing prose even so he's not actually showing in the cast list to hopefully find a happy medium between what our sources say and what you guys seemingly insist on having. As an aside, that's five unique editors you've reverted over the past two months, and if they all come back, what will the consensus be then with over a dozen sources including at least three reliable ones? Remember, I tried being reasonable. I tried discussing it above, and you just refuse to "get it". —Locke Cole • t • c 03:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reverted once for adding Renner to the article, and at first was a little confused, but when I saw the thread on this talk page, I learned that I had been reverted rightfully. My source turned out to contain "No original research", and that was something I owned up to. I'd advise you to refrain from clinging on to your belief of Renner playing Hawkeye. We are in 2013, and the movie will premiere in two years. Think about that, two long years. Truth be told, I feel that Renner will play Hawkeye, but we can wait until it's confirmed by someone involved with the film itself, or a report from a reliable third-party source that contains original research. We are Wikipedia, not Newspedia. We have absolutely no deadline whatsoever. Once we hear (for example, Joss Whedon: "Yeah, we brought Jeremy back in black, to play Hawkeye."), then we can definitely add him to the article, but for now it's all just speculation. Let's just take a breather, and be patient until we have our sources. - Mainstreammark (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are allowed to contain original research, our articles are not allowed to. Ideally our sources are heavily vetted and provide justification for every claim made, but this is not mandatory. As to the issue of a deadline, while true, this is also a wiki. What an article says from day to day need not be 100% stable, and if something changes (Hawkeye is re-cast), then the simplest solution is to edit the article. But guess what? It's still notable that Renner was being reported as having the role for all these months, and would likely still merit a mention in the production section. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the civil response. You have to look at the context the sources are written in, when speaking of Renner. They are just written as if everyone has known about it for a long time. Nowhere does it say "Jeremy Renner has now been confirmed to RETURN as Hawkeye", they give uncertain claims that reference back to nothing. In a sense, they are not reporting on Renner, but speculating instead. This isn't something that I'll waste my time on, it's not really that big of a deal. - Mainstreammark (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't deal in rumours. We have ZERO confirmation he is returning other the a few mentions in a few articles. We have solid sourcing for everyone else, so we can wait. This discussion is over. Rusted AutoParts 12:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It stopped being a rumor when we had over a dozen sources (many of them already used in this article). I'm sorry you don't understand that, but you don't get to overrule policy just because you don't like it. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CBALL is clear on this: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you're already violating WP:CBALL. The only "rumor" that's gone around regarding Jeremy Renner is that he pissed off execs at Marvel and was fired. Meanwhile, most of these sources unambiguously state he is playing the role in the upcoming movie. Note that most of them don't say it's a rumor he's returning, they sat it as fact. And once again, you're reading more into sources than I'm familiar with; are you even allowed to second guess a reliable source like this? So what they don't name who told them he was in the movie: if our sources are comfortable enough stating he is playing the role, then that should be good enough for us. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)WP:ONUS, and I've met the burden of proof on this in spades. Multiple sources unambiguously state Renner is Hawkeye. Not rumored to be. Not a "maybe". No where in these sources does the author indicate there's lack of faith in the statement. Please stop removing well sourced, verifiable content from Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have no confirmation that he infact is returning therefore it is speculation. Most of the sources you posted are speculating based on Whedon's comments about Hawkeye. Also most rumors do not declare themselves to be rumors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if some of the arguments were in the top tier here, this would be resolved.
Maybe if some of the arguments were in the top tier here, this would be resolved.
No, most of the sources are not speculating. You are speculating that the sources are speculating. The sources are, for the most part, unambiguous here. A few of them reference the rumor that he had a falling out with Marvel and was fired, but that would WP:CBALL as it is mentioned in the source to be a rumor that he is not returning. All the other sources? They state clearly that Renner is Hawkeye. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im serious sad you fail to see why you're wrong. These sites are making an assumption based off the fact he was in the first movie. It is not confirmed he is in the second, so we aren't adding him. What's so difficult about this? Rusted AutoParts 22:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the only people making assumptions here are the three of you. This whole "confirmed" BS is just news-speak for "slow news day, but so and so tweeted that they're getting sized up for their costume in new movie X, even though they've been listed in the cast for months". Your arguments against this are weak to say the least, and not backed by policy at all. I'll say it again, for the upteenth time: we have reliable, verifiable sources saying he is in the cast as Hawkeye. The only sources which use the word "rumor" or "gossip" are generally talking about the alleged incidents over his comments with the first Avengers movie and his lack of any character time. Otherwise these sources are unanimous in stating he is in this movie. It really couldn't be any clearer. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, consensus here is clear. There's no point to continue discussion. Locke is now WP:FILIBUSTERing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, that's all we need. Politics in the comic book movie articles. Locke, short and simple: you lost. Now stop this childish behaviour. Rusted AutoParts 23:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've "lost" nothing. Wikipedia is not a game. I've made reasoned, valid arguments for inclusion. I've provided reliable sources (many already used for other "facts" in this article). So far the argument against inclusion amounts to I just don't like it, which as you might guess, is not a very strong argument. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using I just don't like it arguments isn't settling this any quicker. And it's not a filibuster when you're wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well with Rusted's statement and the fact that you are now filibustering Locke. You have been told many times why consensus is what it is, and just because you don't like the outcome and can't seem to understand why consensus is what it is, does not mean you should continue to keep the fight going to get your way. Consensus is not to include the info on Renner, case and discussion closed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe due to Joss Whedon saying that Hawkeye and Black Widow will return and that Scarlett Johansson returning to the film plus her being on of Jeremy Renner's friends I would think we would return. Due to his contract as Hawkeye being in multiple films. - TreCoolGuy
You're joking, right? Rusted AutoParts 13:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow....I have never laughed like this before. I'm 100% sure that you haven't read the thread going on here Tre. You clearly haven't tried to understand our reasoning for not including him in the article. Because of your limited knowledge on what is really going on here....maybe the best course for you now, would be to tread lightly. - Mainstreammark (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstreammark, I have read the thread that has been going on. So next time Mark think before you talk you would be doing us a favor. I'm agreeing with Jeremy Renner being Hawkeye do to him having a multi-film contract with Marvel. That's what I'm not joking about, he does have a contract to be Hawkeye in multiple films. Hell he might do it and might not but like I said he has a contract with Marvel just like Natalie Portman in Thor 2 she didn't want to be in the film due to Marvel not picking her friend that was originally going to be the director. But she still did due to her contract. That's it. - TreCoolGuy
Im sorry, are you honestly trying to say I'm you? Seriously? Rusted AutoParts 18:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry Rusted AutoParts, are you talking to me or Mainstreammark? - TreCoolGuy
Why would he be talking to me? - Mainstreammark (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because he said, "Is that a joke?" And you said "Wow I never laughed that hard before." That's why - TreCoolGuy
Tre, I'm addressing your childish, feeble attempt to label me a sock of you. Now cut it out. You and Locke. Consensus is clearly not in favour of adding Renner, this is blatant WP:FILIBUSTERing. Rusted AutoParts 18:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't calling you a sock puppet Rusted please tell/show me where I called you a sockpuppet? - TreCoolGuy
this tidbit where you claim "I am Rusted". Rusted AutoParts 19:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, I meant to write "I am sorry Rusted." Man this was a huge misunderstanding I wasn't calling you me. - TreCoolGuy
That's odd because if you did see the entire thread both on the talk page and the article itself, you would know that on numerous occasions, users have denied the possibility of actors reprising their roles even if they do have contracts. Casting additions must be backed up with reliable sources. Locke has provided numerous sources, but none of them reference back to anything. They're all speculation and rumours that can't and won't be used in the article. Get this through your head. - Mainstreammark (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to reference back to anything. That's not the way sources work. It would be absolutely amazing if even half the editors of this article actually understood what the policies they're referencing really meant (and not just what they want them to mean). Instead everytime I see a claim about verifiability or reliable sources coupled with a sentence second guessing the sources because those sources don't provide a source of their own I cringe, because that's not the way it works here. If they did, do you realize how much smaller Wikipedia would be? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just being stubborn. There is no way that this will end the way you want it to. If you continue you're obnoxious behaviour, I have a feeling that this will go on until the movie premieres. Renner will not be added to the article, until we have a solid source that confirms his casting addition, understand this. END OF DISCUSSSION. - Mainstreammark (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Name calling ("you're just being stubborn") is at the bottom of that pyramid image. Ad hominen (your next sentence) is just above name calling. As to your next to last sentence, we have solid sources, over a dozen of them. What we also have is a litany of heavily invested, borderline WP:OWN, editors that don't understand that analyzing the sources to the degree they are ("well your source doesn't say what his source is") is original research, and we don't allow that on Wikipedia. On the other hand, we do allow reliably sourced and verifiable content into articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All actors that appear in the article have been verified by one involved with the film itself. Whether it being a director, producer, or another actor. The claims from your sources that say Renner is playing Hawkeye, are all spewing WP:SYNTH. We don't allow that on Wikipedia, either. - Mainstreammark (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH does not apply to sources. It applies to our articles. As to the rest, again, no original research which is what analyzing a source is doing. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I want to do now is define when this stopped being a legit discussion and became simply trolling. Rusted AutoParts 19:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your response would be categorized into the bottom of the pyramid, in case you were wondering. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to add my opinion to this and I'm at the point of just waiting it out because yes the original cast will most likely all be back, most of them are already confirmed, but you do want to wait until a reliable source states that the actors themselves (not the character) are going to be back. Most of the sources I have looked at have all just speculated and said "Renner is suspected to return" but nowhere does it say that he, his manager, a spokesperson, a Marvel correspondent, etc. have confirmed his return. Marvel is very secretive so they may not even announce that he’s returning for his hawkeye roll until an official trailer comes out or something. I know that there is great need and want to have every cast member confirmed, but it probably would just be easier to wait and see. Lady Lotus (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though a few things need to be cleared up here. WP:SYNTH is not about how the sources are receiving their information. It is about how we use different sources to imply something else unsourced.
Also, the sources may do as much original research and synthesis as they like. They are sources after all; it's what they're meant to do. It's us, as editors of an encyclopedia, that aren't allowed to use original research and synthesis.
Now, analysing a source is a good thing to do to determine its reliability. However, if you are claiming without any proof that an article's claims are false (particularly if the source is generally considered reliable), then that's not a legitimate argument for the article being unreliable. It's your own original research, which is bad.
So, when considering whether this information should be added to the article or not, the question we need to ask is, "Is the source reliable?" If the answer is yes, then it's simple. We use the information. However, if the answer is no, then the next question is, "Why is it unreliable?" Is it because the site has a reputation of being misleading or false? Or do you just suspect that they've made this particular statement up. If it's the former, then we don't use the information. But if it's the latter, then that's you using original research.
The answer in this case is simple. Locke Cole has provided at least half a dozen (I couldn't be bothered looking at all of them) reliable sources that state that Jeremy Renner will be in the movie. They don't speculate, they state it simply. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research, when we know where the source is receiving its information. The strongest of these are basing it on Whedon's Comic-Con comments which according to their own transcripts does not check out. This is not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR on our part. These sources are weakly reliable at best. We can afford to wait for something stronger. Wikipedia is not a news site. Even so without a official confirmation, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. And as this information deals with a living actor, we can scrutinize these a bit more due to WP:BLP concerns.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was sorely tempted to add {{fact}} to your first sentence, "It's not original research, when we know where the source is receiving its information.", but I didn't want to be POINTy. You're making an assumption, which is original research, that the author must be basing his entire article on what happened at Comic-Con. As to WP:NORUSH, various editors have, at one time or another, attempted to add him since July. Trust me, there's been no rush. WP:BLP concerns are largely irrelevant, this is not a controversial role for this actor to portray (and we have verifiable sources stating he has this role in this production). WP:INDISCRIMINATE would apply if we were trying to include every member of the production, down to the guy getting coffee and donuts for the crew. Obviously a major character in the production hardly falls under that. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree if the statement had appeared independently of Whedon's comments but there are being used to frame them. And if there is no rush, why not wait a bit longer. Filming is currently scheduled to begin in a few months, why not at least wait till then? We should have some confirmation by then as Marvel usually releases a press statement to commence the start of filming that contains a list of the starring players. I know its a non-controversial statement but since we are dealing with a living person, we should try to get it right. And what I meant by WP:INDISCRIMINATE was if its not official, then who cares?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Independently of Whedon's comments or not, you are speculating that they are speculating. That's original research and an improper use of sources.
There is no rush, but we are certainly not rushing. This discussion has gone for a long time. There's no point in waiting, as we have reliable sources that state that Renner will return.
And WP:INDISCRIMINATE is referring to notability, so is not so applicable in this case, as the casting of a major character in this film is without a doubt, notable. Officially announced or not. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

I still think a reasonable compromise would be to include some prose either in the Cast section or in the Production section noting that various sources (we can choose to name a few directly, though I'd rather not act as an indirect promoter for media outlets) show Renner returning as Hawkeye. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just simplify this whole conversation and debate and say just wait it out? I tried to add Renner and was reverted but it's because all my sources (which were reliable) even say that it's suspected he comes back. I don't mind waiting it out. There are other things to work on in this article than trying desperatly to add Renner. Just saying. We can tone this all down a notch. Locke, you have 6 editors giving you valid explanations why Renner shouldn't be added right now. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am for waiting as well but I am not opposed to working out a compromise either. Perhaps where we detail Whedon's Comic-Con comments about Hawkeye, we can put in parenthesis that some publications took this as a indication that Renner is returning?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a compromise sentence, minus the sources already on the page, or will be used. It is from the middle of the Comic Con paragraph: Whedon also said the film would have a darker tone due to Ultron's involvement, and confirmed that Hawkeye and Black Widow would return. Many news outlets took the confirmation of Hawkeye returning as a confirmation that Jeremy Renner would return to the part.*Sources* However, as of October 2013, no confirmation for the role has been made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something similar, "following joss whedon's comments regarding hawkeye in the film, various media outlets had speculated that renner would return, however as of [date] there has been no word from producers, or the actor. previously, the actor had expressed his dislike of how his role was treated in the film." or something. with proper grammar. || Tako (bother me) || 17:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the problem with both of those statements is, that they are not verifiable and contain original research (and a bit of synthesis in the second statement). Although I believe that Renner's source should be treated just as other casting sources have been, I am open to compromise. I don't know what that would entail at this point in time though. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could make a note in the production section stating Renner's involvement is still undetermined, but we cannot say he is returning when no official announcement has been made. Rusted AutoParts 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of idle curiosity, which Wikipedia policy or guideline dictates that there must be "official announcements"? And how would such a policy or guideline conflict or agree with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take an answer to the above question from anyone, not necessarily RAP. I've just noticed the repeated desire for "official" announcements, but I've never seen a policy or guideline to indicate that only "official" announcements are valid for citations. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an official guideline, per say, but in this instance it's a preference. It may have been a rumour, but the whole debacle with Renner being unhappy and certain actors possibly not returning due to pay made it desirable to have an actual quote from the actor discussing their involvement. And considering we have official statements for Evans, Johansson, Hemsworth, Ruffalo, Jackson and Downey Jr., it makes sense that we do the same with Renner, instead of a speculative blurb at the end of a sentence. Rusted AutoParts 13:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the following change to the compromise sentence: Whedon also said the film would have a darker tone due to Ultron's involvement, and confirmed that Hawkeye and Black Widow would return. With Hawkeye's confirmation, some news outlets reported that Jeremy Renner would return to the part.*Sources* However, as of October 2013, no official announcement has been made. A bit less synthesis, and all verifiable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not a fan of the implications caused by your "However". A little too much synthesis, still, I think. But, there's no need for an official announcement when there's reliable sources. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this why we're talking about a compromise because there are 6 editors saying there aren't reliable sources and like 3 saying there are reliable sources? Lady Lotus (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"But, there's no need for an official announcement when there's reliable sources." remember when every news agency and their mother reported that Bryan Cranston was going to be Lex Luthor? and it was all based on a rumor? and turned out it was later confirmed to be false, despite everyone reporting it? If there is reason to believe something in a source would be false, if you want to use that source at least note that it might be false.|| Tako (bother me) || 19:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: That's valid. I'm saying that I strongly think that Renner should be added to the page, because the argument against is inclusion, is entirely original research and an improper use of sources. It's speculating that others are speculating.
@Tako: I'm pretty sure everyone reported that as a rumour though. I don't remember any reliable sources stating it as fact. Which is what we have in this case; Numerous reliable sources stating that Renner will return.
Having said that, this has gone long enough. A compromise sentence I'd prefer is: Whedon also said the film would have a darker tone due to Ultron's involvement, and confirmed that Hawkeye and Black Widow would return. Many news outlets reported that Jeremy Renner would return to the part.*Sources* --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you have to note in there that it is not official, because that's the whole issue: it's not. Thus the statements provided by myself and TriiipleThreat with that information. That is not synthesis; it's fact. We don't have 100% verifiable, confirmed information. With our statements, we are noting that reports have been made about Renner, but that it is still not a foregone conclusion that he will appear in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And we've circled back to "official" announcements again, which isn't a requirement anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:V only requires that anyone reading the article can go to our cited source and see for themselves that the source says what our article is saying, it does NOT require that the sources disclose how they reached their conclusions (obviously desirable, but also unrealistic for a source to disclose how they reached every statement they make). WP:NOR (and by extension WP:SYNTH) is very clear that sources may only be used to reflect statements they actually make (and that multiple sources may not be used to reach a conclusion not directly reached by the sources separately; the A and B does not mean C argument). Most of the sources listed above matter of factly say Renner is in this movie, a few opine on rumor and should be ignored in so much as we don't post rumors, but most of them flat out say he's in it (full stop, end of sentence). When you start requiring "official" sources you put yourself on a slippery slope: who decides what "official" is? Does it have to be a press release, or is a comment made on Twitter good enough? It's a messy business because you're starting to second guess sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I haven't had a chance to look over the latest suggested compromise, so don't take my comment to mean I'm against it. I'll be back later to address that. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the language used works as a compromise, but I would lose the "However, ..." portion since we don't have any sources to support that statement. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to feel this is circling back into debate. The editors and myself are against this as we don't know if what the reliable sources are printing is true. As stated above, People magazine was quick to publish the rumour Cranston was Lex Luthor, which wasn't true. And currently with the apparent production of Lucy leaving Taiwan is not true, it means that anyone can print something and be wrong. Renner could quit in the coming weeks. And, say Nathan Fillion replaces him. Seeing as we have no sweet clue what is accurate, the best course of action is to simply wait until something solid comes our way. Rusted AutoParts 00:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the other editors and myself are for the inclusion of Renner, because we have no reason to suspect that the verifiable information we are being given by reliable sources is false. We already have something solid. We don't need to wait for something official, because that's not how wikipedia works. As I stated above, articles about Cranston portraying Luthor such as the one you mentioned were clearly reported as rumours. The title of the article is "Bryan Cranston As Lex Luthor in Man of Steel Sequel?". Note the question mark. They clearly state that it was only a rumour in the article. This however, is a totally different case. We have reliable sources stating solidly that Renner will return. No question mark. And of course Renner could quit in the coming weeks, but so could Robert Downey Jr. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Just to guage where we're at with the sentence being discussed above. Feel free to add additional options in their own section if you like. We can probably let this run for a week, max, just so we can keep our options open if someone presents a better revision. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1

Whedon also said the film would have a darker tone due to Ultron's involvement, and confirmed that Hawkeye and Black Widow would return. With Hawkeye's confirmation, some news outlets reported that Jeremy Renner would return to the part.*Sources*

  1. Support this compromise until a source more agreeable to all materializes. This leaves it open ended, so if by some chance the role is re-cast, the prose still works to document the situation that many sources were listing Renner as having the role (which I think would be relevant to the article even if Renner didn't return).—Locke Cole • t • c 09:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Against it just sounds like a newspaper/tabloid and not like an encyclopedia. I have to agree with Rusted and say we wait until something solid is confirmed about his return. Lady Lotus (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, this compromise is both neutral and verifiable. I know it's missing the last sentence about no official announcement but this is a compromise and it's not like we are adding it to the cast section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support I still feel as though it's implying that the news outlets are wrong. But, it's a reasonable compromise. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support - for now. I do support this compromise, similarly to TriiipleThreat's reasonings, but I still feel that something has to come after the last sentence. To me now, it seems like an empty statement, for a reader not a part of the discussion. They would read that and say, "Well is he or isn't he?" That why I vouched for the inclusion of "no official announcement", but once again, that brings us back to the crux of our problem and discussion. Here's a possible addition to the end, but I don't know how it could be sourced: some news outlets reported that Jeremy Renner would return to the part,*Sources* but Marvel failed to give an official announcement on the actor, as they have done with other casting announcements. I hope everyone at least gets the idea of what I'm trying to go for with that addition. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I get what you're trying to say, but like you said, that debate circles us back to the sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If we add something you want to add on the end of this statement, it's not a compromise at all. Isn't it already a compromise enough that Renner isn't appearing in the cast section, and just gets this one mention in the text... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Conflicted the purpose of a straw poll is to gouge officially where people stand on the matter, but it seems Kilroy is rejecting certain people's stances. It's Favre's view to add a tidbit about an official announcement not being present. All were saying is the sources are saying he's back, but the studio and Renner have yet to say anything in regards. Rusted AutoParts 21:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a slight majority in favour of the inclusion of this statement. Shall we use it? Or should we talk more? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll give it a week from the start of the straw poll, which would be Tuesday.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's been a week. I think it's time to revisit this. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) to determine the consensus and close the discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe it would be best to let it run a little longer. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it's probably a good idea to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, since basically everyone involved in the discussion already weighed in at the straw poll a week ago, and nothing's happened since then. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we can move on from this, in light of the information provided below, and now added to the page by TriiipleThreat. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 6 October 2013

Aaron Taylor-Johnson has OFFICIALLY been casted as Quicksilver for this movie!!!!!! 108.29.8.135 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source out there that states this. All point back to the Latino Review source, with is questionable and unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Crush source

A recent source has confirmed both Jeremy Renner and Aaron Taylor-Johnson to play Hawkeye and Quicksilver, respectively. Don't know if this is just more of this, but it did seem quite intriguing. These actors will not be added until we all come to a conclusion of whether or not this source is reliable enough to back up these casting additions. Looking at previous trends on this talk page, I see that some think we are a news site. We are in fact not and have no deadline whatsoever. Once we all come up with a decision that best suits the cause, we can move from there. To all users involved with this article, here is the source. Be sure to analyze it as best you can.

Thanks. - Mainstreammark (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Crush's source about Taylor-Johnson's casting as Quicksilver comes from Latino Review, which has questionable reliability as noted in this talk page. Richiekim (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, and how about Renner's confirmation? - Mainstreammark (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source is titled "Everything We Know About the Next Marvel Team-Up" the problem is that they don't explain how they came to know this information. I'd prefer to wait for something more official to be sure.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing your view I'd agree that we should wait until an official announcement, perhaps from one involved with the film itself. Thanks. - Mainstreammark (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Spader playing Ultron a la RDJ as Iron Man

Can we please add this to the article? Spader will be portraying Ultron rather than them using only his voice, he has stated that in September he went in for all types of scans.

"Just this weekend I went in for them to take very extensive photographs, head scans, body scans, and all kinds of things in preparation for figuring out how the hell I’m gonna fit in this Ultron character."

Source: http://entertainment.inquirer.net/114625/james-spader-ive-always-been-lucky, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/james-spader-explains-why-he-639240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.3.28 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The source does not mention how he be portraying Ultron. The scans could be used for a number of different methods.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As in what.. give me an example as to how a method other than Motion Capture won't be done with James Spader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.7.238 (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The scans more than likely would be used for rendering a CGI model based on Spader's appearance. This model could be animated through the motion capture process or rendered traditionally in post-production, we don't know. The Hollywood Reporter article even says "Mystery still surrounds exactly what kind of Ultron Spader will be."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Another source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/james-spader-ultron_n_4136437.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.23.237 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good find, we'll add it to the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TriiipleThreat why didn't you use that article (The Huffington post article) as a reference instead of the Hollywood Reporter link? It seems like the HuffPost link, with Fieges comments, give a more detailed description of what they're going to do with Ultron/Spader. Just my two cents. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.23.237 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used both, one in the cast section and one in the pre-production section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
okay awesome, thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.23.237 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Taylor-Johnson officially confirmed to play Quicksilver in AoU.

Source: http://www.thewrap.com/aaron-taylor-johnson-closes-deal-join-marvels-avengers-age-ultron-exclusive/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casting Order

Shouldn't the casting order be from who was confirmed first, to last? That's how it's being molded on CA:TWS, T:TDW, and GOTG pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what we go by is the billing block on the film poster or the end credits. However, if a film has neither of these we can base it on previous films in a series or as you say in chronological order of confirmation. In this case its a mix of the latter two.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for clearing that up! 68.45.110.5 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case shouldn't SLJ be credited last? He's always gets the "and" at the end. --DocNox (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reoccuring cast descriptions

Quick question, the descriptions next to the reoccuring cast like RDJ as Iron Man, are the details necessary since they are basically verbatim from the other Avengers page cast section? Lady Lotus (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have to give the readers at least a very basic description of the characters. We cannot expect that they have seen the other films or much less read the other articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TriiipleThreat. It helps to provide basic descriptions here so readers do not have to go elsewhere for clarification. I would think that knowledgeable readers can get through such descriptions easily to get to content new to them. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha and that's what I figured was the reason, I just wanted to check ;) Lady Lotus (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 4 November 2013

Hawkeye is still in this movie and will be played by Jeremy Renner!!! 108.29.8.135 (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I'm not even going to bother with this. Just scroll up the page and read. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 10 November 2013, Renner confirmed by Feige and MarvelUK

Stormxpadme (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC) In this interview: http://mcufilms.tumblr.com/post/65161034561 (around min 14:00) Kevin Feige personally confirms that the whole cast and all the superheroes of the first movie will be back. Also, Renner attended the Thor: The Dark World premier in Los Angeles, and the official MarvelUK-Twitter Account namely described him as "Hawkeye" (https://twitter.com/MarvelUK/status/397722737080164352). There's no reason anymore to stop Renner from being in this article. Stormxpadme (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is sufficient (though I'd prefer a more specific source). Also we can reference the actual Youtube source, not the blog source. The twitter source doesn't verifiy anything except that Renner attended the premiere of Thor: The Dark World.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stormxpadme (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a reason why they would call him Hawkeye along with Hemsworth's Thor (or Renner being there in the first place) when they'd be about to recast him, but yes. For a reliable source, I put my trust into Feige right now. I'd say, an interview like that is enough to at least put him in the list along with a "suspected" if needed. Honestly, the only reason he's not been namedropped so far seems, nobody asked, and Renner hasn't done any interview for half a year. There's also a Finnish interview from half a year ago (translation here: http://sineaterposts.tumblr.com/post/51467678532/a-small-premise-english-is-not-my-language-any), in which he in fact says he's looking forward to do AoU. Overally, there's never been a reason to assume he won't be in except for a rumor on Perez Hilton that Hilton himself declared false a few days later. So, um because I have no idea, how this works, any of the mods here edit the article?
Stormxpadme (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This is excellent news. I'll be honest though - It's a little frustrating that all it took was a few words from Feige's mouth to render over a month's worth of discussion, working towards a compromise (which was essentially ready to go in the article a week ago), useless. Anyway, we're not going to argue that the interview isn't reliable, as Feige didn't mention Renner specifically? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say, they were useless, and putting a "suspected" behind his name in the article would still be a good compromise, I think, though personally I think it's a little paranoid. People are going crazy because of a completely unreliable rumor on Perez Hilton, there's sources everywhere (which I mentioned above) which say exact the opposite. Perez Hilton himself said a few days later, his Marvel source confirmed that Renner is still very much in. And yet people insist, he isn't. Unless you go and don't consider him a "superhero of the first movie", I don't see why Kevin's statement should exclude him? Honestly, there's people on this list who have been put there for less. Olson ie has been namedropped by Jackson, Taylor-Johnson comes of as confirmed by a random newspaper, and I see how you accept that when Marvel doesn't deny it. But Marvel never even just once as much as hinted on Renner being out, and he himself said half a year ago, he's in, so why is that worth less?Stormxpadme (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ProfessorKilroy: I believe the interview is sufficient as well. The only issue I have is the initial source provided is a blog site, which can't be used, and the YouTube channel which the live stream video was posted, is not an official channel by Marvel or a credible third party (ie, IGN"s channel) that is hosting it, per WP:VIDEOREF. So if we can find the info from a reliable source, let's add the info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the publishers of the video were making their own claims, I would agree that we need a more reliable source. However, since this is just a recording of Fiege's comments, I'd say it is okay. Yes, it could have been altered but that seems unlikely.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I say the YouTube video can be used for now as the source, until we inevitably get another, better one, to replace it. But this will at least get the info on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

additional information: The interview was done on October 26th in the course of the Thor 2 German press tour in Berlin. Moderator is Steven Gätjen. The questions were posted by fans on Marvel's official German Facebook site (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=361521870650715&set=a.266420743494162.1073741828.266195870183316&type=1&relevant_count=1 this was the advertisement) and answered in a livechat.Stormxpadme (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frustration

This discussion is closed

I am, admittedly, frustrated that we had over a dozen reliable sources saying Renner was in the cast, and suddenly because someone finds a YouTube video of Feige saying the entire cast will be back, we can add him (and I'll note, he doesn't say Renner by name, just the "entire cast"). To be honest the way sources are handled on this page is broken, and while consensus is important, local consensus cannot override site policy (WP:V, WP:NOR, etc). You guys are fine to question the credibility/reliability of sources, but to sit there and hyper-analyze them, saying they're making assumptions and engaging in original research, that's unacceptable.

And I'll note that we didn't have to go through the entire !vote rigamarole like we did above the first time, with one of the regulars (I won't trot out WP:OWN, even though that's the way it feels) adding it immediately... *sigh* —Locke Cole • t • c 23:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors agreed that the above source was sufficient. Consensus is the determining factor of reliability, like everything else on Wikipedia. WP:CONCENSUS is not only policy, it is the policy. I'd also argue that editors here and project as whole take WP:V, and WP:OR seriously, which is why we vet sources so throughly. Now you are free to challenge the addition and start this whole thing again. Reply if you will, but as for me I'm done with this situation and moving on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You never questioned the reliability of the sources above. You instead chose to attack them based on the original research that the sources must have been "making assumptions". We don't do that. Full stop, end of sentence. If you have a problem with the reliability of a source, your best course of action is to find other statements made by the source that are false so you can establish a history of inaccuracy. As far as consensus is concerned, it is a very important policy (I should know, I've worked on the policy, going so far as to re-author an image used in it, File:Consensus Flowchart.svg), however, a local consensus here cannot override our requirements for verifiability or our ban on original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole discussion was to add Renner in the first place. He's added now. Why is the discussion of reliable sources STILL ongoing? Lady Lotus (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I would really rather not go through this entire process again the next time there's a well sourced statement I'd like to add to the article (or any article where there's even a remote possibility I'd run into this group of editors again). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Waah, waah. We didnt add the sources that were just making the assumption Renner was back, waah! Since you and your lackey don't understand this thread you started merely serves to whinge about us not adding Renner when you wanted. Posts are removed if they don't add to the article. This isn't adding anything. Rusted AutoParts 16:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts: Wow. What do you call that? That's seriously one of the least mature comments I've seen on a wikipedia talk page. I hope you got my message about the details of WP:BRD, and I'm glad you chose to respond instead of resuming an edit war. But seriously, for someone complaining about a post being whinging and adding nothing, your comment looks a lot like whinging and adding nothing.
As to the actual matter at hand, I don't have a problem with the current Youtube source, but I do have a problem with the way that editors here handle the sources. It's excellent that there is such a level of scrutiny, and regard for WP:V and WP:NOR. However, the ideas behind WP:NOR and WP:SYN, were being applied to the situation incorrectly. And it would be useful for some editors to know, for future circumstances, that sources may indeed contain Original research and synthesis (it's us who aren't allowed to include original research and synthesis), because they're sources - it's their job to. Otherwise, we'd only use sources that source other sources, and after that, when does it end? And the level of scrutiny going on with the reliable articles provided was in fact, original research. Meaning that not adding the information was wrong, and should be avoided in future circumstances. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a table response would help...
You said... Response
Waah, waah. WP:CIV
We didnt add the sources that were just making the assumption Renner was back, [...] Please provide evidence supporting your assertion that the sources are "assuming" Renner is back.
[...] waah! WP:CIV, again
Since you and your lackey [...] WP:CIV, one more time
[...] don't understand [...] I would posit that it is you, not I, that don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines as it relates to sources, verification and original research. After all, you're the one making speculations about sources, not I.
[...] this thread you started merely serves to whinge about us not adding Renner when you wanted. WP:CIV again, and the point of this thread is to try to communicate effectively that you're not following our policies on sources, and that this is unacceptable.
Posts are removed if they don't add to the article. WP:TPG is fairly explicit about the removal of another editors comments. Your removal meets none of the very strict, very clear, situations set out there.
This isn't adding anything. It's a discussion regarding the use of sources, both in the future, and a postmortem on what went wrong above. Honestly, it's a chance for the regular editors here to learn how to correctly apply our policies on sources, verification and original research. Don't pass it up.
Rusted AutoParts 16:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] At least you signed it. Please stop with the personal attacks and incivility, my next stop is WP:RFC/U. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, you made a table. How cute. Rusted AutoParts 00:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Renner is on the article. Are we seriously discussing that we added him later than you wanted? Those sources had no viabl backup to their statement he'd be returning. None whatsoever. But he's on the article now as someone involved with the production confirmed it. Whedon only said Hawkeye. Terrence Howard was Rhodey in Iron Man. In Iron Man 2, Rhodey was back but as Don Cheadle. Things change. Variety, Collider, whatever source you threw at us had no official word. Feige didn't say anything. Renner didn't say anything. Whedon didn't say anything. Hell, we could take a comment from Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson or anyone in the cast. Bu we had none of that. It was speculative. But we have official word now, so why are we still talking? Rusted AutoParts 20:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're speculating that the sources are speculating. Your speculation is original research as the sources don't (for the most part) indicate they are speculating, but stating it as fact. On the other hand, if you had examples of the sources being unreliable, that's a horse of a different color. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want us to kiss your ass and say you were right? Renner's on the article, why you're still crying is baffling. Move on with your life. And besides, your logic is flawed. You're speculating that we're speculating that the sources are speculating. It's an endless loop. Rusted AutoParts 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts: First off, thankyou for responding more maturely, but here's the thing: The sources don't need to provide viable backup because they are the viable backup. It's not common wikipedia practice to ignore verifiable information from reliable sources, in order to wait for something official. It's just not the way this works.
We're still talking because down the line this will happen again, and it'll come down to the same argument, and I'd rather try and sort out this misconception about how sources should be treated now.
As to speculating about speculating about speculating, that's why we just don't speculate, or assume speculation. We take the reliable source for what it is: reliable. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone both new to this board and adding the latest source, I've read now through the whole discussion and maybe speak a word on a neutral level: I'm not an editor of this page, but none of the before mentioned links about Renner qualify for me as reliable sources. The only thing we knew for sure was that all the actors were bound for more than one flick, including him, so there was no reason from the start to think, there would be a recast. As someone who's watching everything very closely about Renner in AoU, I've waited for half a year for a confirmation now, still, reading every interview, article, clips from people involved. There was nothing, simply because, as stated, Renner didn't give much of an interview for half a year. The last interview on his work, he gave in Cannes (I linked it), did in fact say, he'll do Age of Ultron. So now we're nearing the filming of Age of Ultron, and what happens is that other stars, who do more press, talk about the movie and he doesn't. Other characters are talked about and confirmed because they are in the movies before Age of Ultron. That's the reason we've heard about all the other cast members so far. The subject 'Hawkeye' simply didn't come up since Avengers Assemble, because it wasn't necessary. And some people take that as a reason to believe a completely silly rumor on a gossip page, based on a trimmed statement of Renner (the rest of that statement is nothing that could piss Marvel off). A rumor that is long declined by Perez Hilton with just the same "unnamed source" which should give you a hint this was bullshit from the start. There's no reason to assume, Renner won't be back, just because no one talks about a character that is not relevant to the phase 2 movies before Age of Ultron. Renner is bound by contract as all the actors are. The only one who wasn't was Robert Downey Jr before he renewed his contract and this was, except for Spader, the ONLY OFFICIAL CASTING CONFIRMATION IN AN ONLINE ARTICLE THAT MARVEL EVER GAVE ON AGE OF ULTRON. Feige once namedropped Ruffalo and in the course of the Thor: The Dark World press tour they confirmed Chris. But that all came in only lately. They did that online article about RDJ because his contract was up, to confirm, he's still in. Sure, all of the actors could at some point try and get out of their contract, but then none of these actors should be in the list. 'Cause none of them but RDJ have ever been officially announced for AoU by Marvel. But someone namedropped them, so they're on the list. For me, Taylor-Johnson actually belongs there less than Renner, because he's only been reported by a news site who did NOT quote a Marvel official. The heroes of the last movie and their cast are in as we know now officially by Feige. If any of them wants out before the filming starts, they can be taken off the list. But for now they should all be there. And the link I posted just confirmed this. That's why this link is relevant and reliable. That it's on youtube is more a Marvel organization error. They had it on the Marvel Germany Facebook page right after the chat, it's not there anymore. That doesn't make half an hour of an official interview untrue, though, where you see Alan and Kevin sitting there and answer questions. So, this is how I see it, and I want to say thank you to the editors for listening to us and adding Renner to the article, because all these unreliable rumors about him for now do only one thing: They bring unrest in the fandom. And a healthy fandom is a functional fandom.Stormxpadme (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is going in CIRCLES and everyone is just repeating themselves in what was already discussed in another subsection. Some say sources are verified, others don't. Renner is added. Move on. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. There's no point to this thread other than to vent we didn't add Renner when Locke first brought it up. There's nothing we can do about it. He's on the article, so what's the problem? Rusted AutoParts 13:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for providing another source saying the cast is returning. We have numerous policies and guidelines regarding article content, and the relevant ones here are verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. Biographies of living persons is also worth your time. It's a lot to take in for a new editor, but it's worth your time to read and understand some of the issues editors face with creating and maintaining articles. Having said that, be bold in updating pages, if you break something there are hundreds of editors here willing and able to fix things as they occur.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. (I'll also post a slightly modified version of this on your talk page, which should provide a notification to you). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong discussion? Rusted AutoParts 22:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is over. It's going nowhere and it has nothing to do with improving the article. It's just editors going back and forth. If you want to continue, take it your talk pages. Lady Lotus (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cobie's character description?

the character description reads a bit wrong to me...

An agent with S.H.I.E.L.D. who works closely with Nick Fury Shouldn't it be "an agent OF SHIELD, not WITH SHIELD?

Also isn't she is sub-director or whatever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.17.75 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coulson introduces himself in Thor as "with S.H.I.E.L.D.", so that's a correct way to put it. According to this (http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Maria_Hill) she's "Deputy Director", but it's not an official Marvel source.Stormxpadme (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Olsen OFFICIALLY confirmed her involvement in Avengers: Age of Ultron

Source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1717222/elizabeth-olsen-avengers-age-of-ultron.jhtml?utm=share_twitter 98.110.4.28 (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We know. She's already on the article. Rusted AutoParts 20:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, really? hahah I knew this. [I] was the one who brought up the SLJ confirmation to this site, but THIS confirmation came straight from her mouth. I'm just letting it be known that she, herself, officially confirmed that she will be playing the character. Also, if we're going to get techincal here, SLJ never said who she was playing, not once, so it could be argued, but I won't go there because that will be a waste of time. Give me back Triiiptthreats, he's much nicer. 98.110.4.28 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying she's already listed. Rusted AutoParts 21:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stark will return

Revert Tony Stark/Iron Man into Tony Stark only, because the post credits of Iron Man 3 said, "Tony Stark will return", not Iron Man will return

76.188.116.60 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there's nothing confirming that RDJ won't don the Iron Man suit again so no one is going to revert it to just "Tony Stark", the reason that it says "Tony Stark will return" was to show that He and Iron Man are one. Joss Whedon has gone on record saying “Well, I feel like in Iron Man 3, even though he said, ’I've changed’ — he blew up his remote suits, but I don’t think anybody thinks he doesn’t have one anymore. The question is, if The Avengers are called, does he show up? And the answer is, ‘Yes!’” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I've dug back up the official Marvel Link for the video with Kevin confirming the whole cast, since some people said, a fan upload was not sufficient. This is link of the video on the Marvel Germany official facebook page. You don't even need a facebook account to watch it. https://www.facebook.com/Marveldeutschland/app_511778215585241 ; starting around minute 14:00;Stormxpadme (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 November 2013

thor is also a co-leader of avengers.

117.199.133.210 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source that mentions Iron Man and Captain America as leaders doesn't mention Thor. --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Marvel's" and "The" in title

I think these should be reexamined as a part of the official title. First for "Marvel's" in the official name: the same issue occurred with Iron Man 3's press releases. Except for the announcement press release, this has not been a part of the title, which can be noted in the most recent release for Olsen and Taylor-Johnson. As seen, the first film is formatted as "Marvel's The Avengers", while this one is Marvel's "Avengers: Age of Ultron". The same stylings is used in Spader's release. And this leads into the next observation, that "The" is not being used, even in the common title by Marvel. It's just "Avengers: Age of Ultron". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another great example of why we do not use the WP:OFFICIALNAME as article title. As for the lead sentence, I suggest we table this discussion until we have more info on how it is marketed, classified and perhaps the on-screen credits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But I don't know if in the immediacy, it should be determined if the "The" should stay in the title now or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see any urgency to remove it right now. Reason being; Marvel is contradicting itself. I don't know if this shows an evolution of the title or if it is just an editorial oversight. So until we something more concrete that cannot be retrofitted, I say we leave it alone.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It only contradicts the original source. Every single source from Marvel since then has not used the "The", including the logo. --DocNox (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just went back and checked, and yep, Marvel used the same "Avengers: Age of Ultron" title in their Spader announcement. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the logo, too. I forgot about that. The first film had the "The" in the cross of the 'A', while this does not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All their press releases for their other films have called it "Avengers: Age of Ultron" with no "The" as well, for example this Bradley Cooper one where it's listed with their upcoming films at the bottom and this Ant-Man one when they changed that film's release date. Also here's Marvel's official page for "Avengers: Age of Ultron" which you can compare with their "Marvel's The Avengers" page. They have consistently not used "Marvel's" or "The" in the official title since that first press release. I think it would be really silly to ignore all that and just stick with the first one. --DocNox (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, perhaps we should request a move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For non-controversial moves, a speedy deletion page move request will suffice. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly confused now, why is the page still with the "The" but the lead and infobox have been changed to have it without? Didn't this get moved to have it without the "the"? Lady Lotus • talk 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a move was requested, it should be moved sometime soon. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why does the Avengers sequel get its own page but not the Man of Steel sequel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.124.56 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the amount of coverage by reliable sources, see WP:GNG. Also keep in mind, notability changes as more sources are published. So just because something wasn't notable yesterday doesn't mean it won't be notable tomorrow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Director of Photography (cinematographer)

Source: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=91169

Ben Davis, who has done the cinematography on Guardians will also be doing the cinematography on Age of Ultron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.9.105 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please provide a more reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://new.spring.me/#!/VonSpears/q/533721139734668160?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=shareanswer&_sg=&_sk= direct from James Gunn's mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.9.105 (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, he doesn't mention this film in that post, not to mention it is an unverified Spring.me account.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no problem Triiiple! I thought that was his actual spring.me account. No worries! I'll try to track down a better source, if not, there's no rush on this. 98.110.9.105 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is his agency's website, with his cinematography credits listed [1] Rusted AutoParts 02:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, after a quick google search there are number of sites linking Ben Davis to Independent Talent Group but no news sources. In any case, ITG does seem like a legit agency so I'd be okay with using it as source until something stronger comes along.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is his inclusion as the cinematographer? I don't see where you included it on the article, @TriiipleThreat 71.188.17.123 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source 71.188.17.123 (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renner new interview confirmation

Coming back to our last conversation where the editors wished for a more reliable link for Renner's casting, here we have a tweet from Latino Review, quoting Renner himself: https://twitter.com/Latinoreview/status/409449683074183168 ; as can be seen on Latino Review's homepage, Latino Review has done interviews with all the Cast in the course of the American Hustle promo, so the source is undeniable reliable.Stormxpadme (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter isn't reliable. Rusted AutoParts 20:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's from LATINO REVIEW, they aren't reliable sources to begin with. 9/10 times they are completely wrong with their "scoops" and "exclusives", but Renner, is in fact back to play Hawkeye 71.188.17.123 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know he is, it was never in question other than in some people's wishes and one website's speculations, based on incompletely quoted interviews. Also Feige confirmed it just for good measure months ago. But when they included Renner on this wiki page, they wanted to have a more reliable source than Feige, that's why I came back with this link. Don't know about liability of Latino Reviews, but they did interviews with the American Hustle cast, it's in exclusive videos on their homepage. No need to doubt that. The author of the tweet will come back to me today with more details, though. Maybe the editors will be satisfied then when the tweet is posted onto a homepage that the twitter account is officially linked to anyway. Sorry if I sound a little weary, but it gets unnerving when people violently doubt every single source confirming something that was never ever a subject unless in a fart on Perez Hilton. It feels a little like they want to deny it until the very end for personal reasons.Stormxpadme (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted, Twitter IS a reliable source if it's from a verified account. 71.188.17.123 (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The auther of the tweet can't be a reliable source because Latino Review themselves are not reliable sources to begin with. You would be able to claim your source if it doesn't come from anything but Marvel, Fiege, Whedon, Deadline, HitFix, Hollywood Reporter, ect. Twitter can be a reliable source if the account is verified.

James Rhodes back for Age of Ultron, and Simon McBurney rumored to be casted as J.A.R.V.I.S (human form)

Source: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/12/12/colonel-james-rhodes-is-part-of-the-avengers-age-of-ultron/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter 71.188.17.123 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it has been added already by this source, http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/12/12/don-cheadle-mellow-barely-awake-after-globes-news/3999859/, but should be cleaned up on the "cast" section. 71.188.17.123 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
here's another source: http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/confirmed-don-cheadle-will-suit-up-again-as-war-machine-for-avengers-age-of-ultron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.17.123 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ScreenRant source for filming in the US?

There is a source in the pre-production section that states that ScreenRant confirms that partial filming will take place in the US. Here's the source: http://screenrant.com/ant-man-movie-locations-edgar-wright/ and with that source it's actually reverts back to three other sources, Deadline, Fandango, and Screendaily. It should be noted that those sources only talk about Edgar Wright's Ant-Man film, and that it briefly mentions that The Avengers will be shot in the U.S., but doesn't specify the sources of this claim. I know there has been chatter of the film shooting in Africa, and the UK but there hasn't been any talks of the film shooting in the U.S. 71.188.17.123 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So no one's going to address this concern? It doesn't make sense that ScreenRant would say something that may, or may not be true, and since when is that site a source? It's more of a third-party source rather than an actual source. Npabebangin (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing? how is that a third party source a definitive source, no other news outlet has stated that AoU will be filming in the US. Hello?? 71.188.21.128 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Cheadle

The wording per the original source suggests that this is not a starring role in the film. It simply states that he has "a part to film" in the midst of a laundry list of items that he has on his schedule. In contrast it states he will "star" in a Miles Davis biopic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read my original Talk about this posting, can u reply to that? It seems we are on the same page with the casting, he'll only have a supporting role, and HitFix has confirmed his role 71.188.17.123 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the HitFix source as it being starring hence my edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre what edit? I see no edit to the page, it's still reverts back to the original source. Are you speaking of him only having a "part" in the film? If so then yes, we're on the same page. I feel as though the HitFix source should be added as well as it confirms he will have a part in the film, as the USAToday source only grazes the inclusion of his involvement in Age of Ultron. 71.188.17.123 (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renner's official confirmation.

Here's the official source 71.188.21.128 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need. He's already listed in the article, there was already a huge discussion on this talk page, and most importantly, information does need to be reliably sourced (so thankyou for your concern), but those sources do not have to be official. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know this, I was just presenting you with a soure, that's all 71.188.21.128 (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Von Strucker has a role in the sequel.

Here's the source via HitFix. 71.188.21.128 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source leads back to Latino Review, which is unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it shouldn't really matter, HitFix is a reliable source and has broken news on Don Cheadle's role as Rhodey. 71.188.21.128 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&oldid=587560869"