Talk:Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

The current info box image is awful

Surely something better is available? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have no objection if something better can be found. bd2412 T 19:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably this Lord kai07 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Most of the opposition is based on TWODABS; no need for a dab page. Has anyone considered simply Thor (cinematic character) as the title of this article? (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) → Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe character) – The current title is ambiguous with Thor (film) which is also something from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Per WP:INCDAB and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Character articles, the correct way to disambiguate would be to add "character". The current title should redirect to Thor (disambiguation). Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per WP:TWODABS. The disambiguation function is already adequately served by the hatnote. I would not be opposed to moving this title to Thor Odinson (Marvel Cinematic Universe), as that really is his canon equivalent of a surname. bd2412 T 16:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you point to what exactly in WP:TWODABS you are referring to? I'm not sure I see what you are referring to there. --Gonnym (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)" Here, there are only two possibilities, the character and the film. Because we can't have a disambiguation page at the title "Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" per WP:INCOMPDAB, that title would then point to Thor (disambiguation), which would be less helpful to readers than the hatnote is now. bd2412 T 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Ok, so you were referring to that, but this page isn't the primary topic as can be seen by the fact that it has disambiguation and per WP:INCDAB When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page. It's too soon to check page views comparisons for this page, but given the fact that the first film gets more page views then the comic character article (as can be seen here), I'd even say that if we go with a primary (which again, I'm not in favor as a disambiguation cannot be a primary) then the film would still be it. --Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
        • If these were unrelated topics pageviews might matter, but they are not. The film, Thor, is a subtopic of the MCU character, Thor. If the character didn't exist, then the film could not exist, although it would have been possible to have Thor appear in the Avengers without having his own origin story film. This is comparable to George Washington in the American Revolution - if the article on this aspect of the person's life was the most-viewed, we still wouldn't make it the primary topic of George Washington, or even consider moving George Washington to a different title to accommodate any perceived ambiguity. Although the film and character in this case are fictional, the character is still the thing the film is about. bd2412 T 20:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Not nearly the same situation. #1 the article isn't titled George Washington (American Revolution) and George Washington doesn't have any disambiguation (= primary topic) - which is unlike this article which does have disambiguation, hence not being a primary topic of anything. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
            • George Washington (disambiguation) does exist, however. The character, Thor, is the primary topic of the phrase Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) in the same way that the President, George Washington, is the primary topic of the phrase George Washington. Furthermore, the function of disambiguating the topics is already accomplished in the hatnote. There is no reason to send readers to a completely different disambiguation page to find the exact same link to the film. This gives no additional help to readers searching for the film, since they can already find it on the article proposed to be moved, while inconveniencing readers who are, in fact, looking for the character. bd2412 T 17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I get where this request is coming from, but WP:TWODABS applies here. Calidum 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'm going to support this, as per WP:INCDAB and WP:PRECISE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @IJBall:, what are your thoughts on the alternative proposal to move this to Thor Odinson (Marvel Cinematic Universe)? bd2412 T 23:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It's an OK alternative proposal... My main issue with it is that I don't think "Thor Odinson" is the WP:COMMONNAME (which is Favre1fan93's point below). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, if we were do a count, then names like "Steve Rogers" aren't common either, since almost always he's referred to as some variation of "Steve", "Captain Rogers", "Cap", "Captain America", etc. So its not really about COMMONNAME, but more about WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:PRECISION, and WP:NATURAL. -- Netoholic @ 02:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Gonnym and IJBall. Also, I don't think "Thor Odinson (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is really an option, because while true, "Thor" is still the character's WP:COMMONNAME. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that Thor is the common name, which why this is the current title of the article. However, since we are talking about moving it, I would consider adding "Odinson" to be a better solution than adding "character". None of the titles on other MCU characters have "character" in the title, but they do have the character surname. bd2412 T 02:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE, WP:TWODABS, and WP:INUNIVERSE. Thor (film) is a real-world entity (with a cast, director, premiere date, etc) and is not part of the fictional Marvel Cinematic Universe. The only Thor that is within that fictional universe is Thor Odinson. Any confusion is handled adequately by the hatnote, and we don't need to be pedantic. -- Netoholic @ 02:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thor, the film, is not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe fictional universe, but he is part of the actual real-world entity movie franchise which is called the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which the fictional character article disambiguation also uses. The fictional universe isn't called MCU, it is in-fact called "Earth-199999". So if we were to use this for the character it would be Thor (Earth-199999). --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, that's just out of left-field. Sources regarding this topic do not use Earth-2123456 or whatever. The fictional universe is called Marvel Cinematic Universe (you call tell its right from the word "Universe" in it, not "Franchise" or "Film Series". -- Netoholic @ 10:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • "Interestingly, the MCU universe is technically classed as Earth-199999", "The Marvel Cinematic Universe is itself just one universe among hundreds of thousands that make up the Marvel multiverse. It's designated Earth-199999", several reference in the book Make Ours Marvel: Media Convergence and a Comics Universe (I'm sure there are more, didn't need to search long for these as these were first page results). Not every franchise needs to be called "X franchise", if the franchise has a unique name then there is no need for it. Also, we do not need to search too far, Marvel Cinematic Universe first sentence says this: The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is an American media franchise and shared universe - which means it is both. Feel free to remove the "franchise" part and see if it sticks. --Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
        • . Again, pedantic. No one has expressed actual confusion related to the naming of this article. -- Netoholic @ 11:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
          • It's so great having a discussion with an editor who places an argument which turns out to be incorrect and instead of admitting it was incorrect, resolves to commenting on the editor. Lovely. Also, no need for "actual confusion" as we cannot test that with the current tools Wikipedia has, all we can is turn to our guidelines which clearly say that if it the title is ambiguous, it should not be, which has been proven. Anyways, this specific sub-discussion has seem to run its course. --Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
            • Its not incorrect. You go searching for a specific phrase and you will absolutely find a small minority of sources which reference it. Its called "selection bias" or "confirmation bias" and its a misued tactic in RM discussions all the time. Use the sources of this article, or survey a broad selection of sources to get a general impression on how its handled. Dont plug in keywords and come back with 2-3 links which you think makes your case a "slam dunk". The MCU shared universe meaning came first, and was adopted as a shorthand to describe the collection of films. The Earth-199999 designation came long after to make the MCU "fit" into established comics multiverse numbering - but its a point of trivia, not a common way to describe the fictional universe. Lastly, "pedantic" was a comment on the arguments made, not the editor - I used the same word in my original vote, not directed at anyone in particular, just the tendency of to be too unnecessarily strict and enraptured by the minutae of our guidelines rather than actually benefiting readers and editors working with this article. -- Netoholic @ 12:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral comment There is also Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe) which you lot might want to look at after to decide if that is appropriate as it is a similar situation to this. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. It is consistent with how "(comics)" disambiguation terms are used. I'm sure there are a number of comic book characters whose article titles need to be disambiguated and also have their own specific comic book lines, e.g., Black Panther (comics), Tick (comics), and Spawn (comics). We don't get these characters mixed up with their comic book lines of the same name. We don't need to get more detailed here for similar reasons. EDIT: We even have Thor (Marvel Comics) to refer to the figure without needing "character". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TWODABS. In the unlikely scenario a user somehow gets here but wants the film, the hatnote will fix the problem. (And per Netholic, unless the MCU gets really meta, the current title is reasonably precise anyway - Thor-the-film/documentary is probably not an in-universe part of the MCU.) SnowFire (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think moving it to Thor Odinson (Marvel Cinematic Universe) instead would fix the problem better as someone propossed above.★Trekker (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Appearances in derivative media

Should there be mentions made of the fact that the tie-in games to the films and the Team Thor mockumentary shorts are in large meant to be (or at least heavily inspired by) this version of the character?★Trekker (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Big three Avengers?

The current version of the page refers to Thor as "one of the Big Three Avengers along with Iron Man and Captain America". The term "big three" appears nowhere either on this page or on Avengers (comics). The rest of the paragraph consists of speculation about Steve Rogers not appearing again (he might, in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) and Thor appearing again in Thor 4 (which might not be made). I think it's cleanest to remove this paragraph. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Time travel

Moved to Talk:Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) § Time travel category

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Steve Rogers and Tony Stark are both categorized as time travelers, but none of the other participants in the Time Heist seen in Avengers: Endgame are categorized as such. Bruce Banner, Clint Barton, Scott Lang, Natasha Romanoff, and Thor should all be included in the category "Time travelers." --IJVin (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Same answer as on the talk page for Bruce Banner: this is not a defining character trait for any of them. Cat has been removed from Steve and Tony's articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reposting to avoid disparate content in duplicate discussions: Steve Rogers (the "man out of time") is the one MCU character for whom there is general agreement that time travel is a defining characteristic. He is known to have originated in World War II, and is often referenced in terms of his being from a different time. He also happens to do more intentional time travel than any other MCU character. BD2412 T 23:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's continue this at the Bruce Banner talk so we aren't have the same discussion twice. Talk:Bruce Banner (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Time travel - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further moved to Talk:Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Time travel category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

New Odin draft

I’m just letting people know that there is a draft about Odin called Draft:Odin (Marvel Cinematic Universe). It needs cleaned/expanded. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. 🙂 Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that this draft has been deleted as abandoned. I suspect that if Odin is again revived in a What If series or the like, so should the draft. BD2412 T 06:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph and short description templates

In the first paragraph it says that Thor joined the Guardians of the Galaxy. I want to take this out but I can't because it is generated by a 'short description' template. What are these, and how do I edit them?

Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 01:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not in the short description template, but in the infobox. That said, I think he pretty clearly did join the Guardians of the Galaxy at the end of Avengers: Endgame, hence the entire exchange with Peter Quill about who was in charge. BD2412 T 01:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, I must have missed that. Thanks, and sorry.

Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 01:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• What If Thor were an Only Child.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

Can we change the infobox image please? Lord kai07 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason or an alternative you'd like to suggest? —El Millo (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the change that was made unilaterally, restoring the better-lit and more action-oriented image that has been on the page for almost its entire existence. BD2412 T 20:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Comparing the images, I find the status-quo image to be a better visual aid with high visibility due to the outdoor lighting. The newer one is too dark all around. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that if we are going to have a change of image (and I am by no means opposed to that outcome) we should set out the options here and discuss them first. BD2412 T 21:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The previous image is taken from a very akward position. It also looks very bland. I would still suggest changing the image to a better version. The second image had much more detail.

Also the status quo image kinda looks ugly. Shouldn't we have an image, where Thor actually looks great? Lord kai07 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Lord kai07

Opinions may vary, but more editors seem to think that the proposed alternative is not an improvement. There must be thousands of images of Thor in the MCU to choose from. BD2412 T 21:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't see the proposed image anymore, but WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT (kinda looks ugly) is not a good reason to change the status quo. Personally, I feel the current image is a pretty good representation of the character. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

How about this image or this Will this work? I believe This image definitely looks better. I will just make a list of images:

• 1

• 2

• 3

• 4

• 5

Or a cropped edit of this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I don't think any of those are a particular improvement over this one. None of the arguments that the image needs to be changed seem to be compelling. —El Millo (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use any of the images of Thor with the short hair from Ragnarok/Infinity War, as that is not his usual look, nor would I use images with a blank background or other characters standing right behind him in the background. BD2412 T 19:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Stock/promo art images shouldn't be used. I agree with BD2412 that Thor's look in Ragnarok and Infinity War is not representative of his usual appearance. Same goes for Endgame, for obvious reasons. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, we already have a "Thorbowski" image in the article to illustrate that appearance. BD2412 T 05:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

But the first image was directly taken from Thor 2 .It perfectly represents him Lord kai07 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This image? Or this? These two images are only from Thor 2. The lightning is clear. It fully shows Thor in his usual appearance. No background characters. And it's taken from the movie. Lord kai07 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Not action poses so not better to status quo image. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the general takeaway is that an image for this infobox should 1) be a still from actual media, not a blank background; 2) without other characters in the immediate background; 3) show the subject in his typical look, not various one-off looks; 4) conveys action. BD2412 T 03:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Typical look 1

• Typical look 2 Lord kai07 (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)