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 98.110.7.238 (talk) at 23:45, 16 October 2013 (→James Spader playing Ultron a la RDJ as Iron Man). 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

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]

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.

"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]

So this won't be added??

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&oldid=577500062"