Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/Archive 2

Nathan Fillion as Wonder Man
There is new information regarding the actor's involvement in the film. The character which he plays is indeed Wonder Man, though it is not clear whether he will have his super-powers/-name in the film. The actor took to his Twitter account to show his character's look for the film, in one of his deleted scenes from the movie. Though it is not clear whether the scene is a 'meta'-scene of his character (seeing as the character will be an 'actor' in movies that take place within the fictional universe), or a scene which saw him as Wonder Man; his credit should be listed on the page's cast list. The reference can even mention that some of his scenes were deleted -- until it is clear whether his role will be entirely cut or not. I think we need to add his character to the credits.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and readded the information regarding Nathan Fillion's role in the movie, as director/writer James Gunn has now discussed the topic on his Twitter page. The role was confirmed, though the importance and depth of the role is not yet known, it is now common-knowledge that Simon Williams / Wonder Man is in the movie. That discussion can be viewed | here.--71.35.227.6 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)<--this was me, I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in before I submitted the edit.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been deleted multiple times now, and yet I have sourced multiple references where Nathan Fillion was cast as Simon Williams / Wonder Man. Here again is the writer/director stating that Fillion was to portray the character though his cameo-scenes were deleted. He later states that the role may appear in a future film with Fillion in the role, as discussed | here. Needs to be included on this page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that it has been deleted multiple times by other editors and yet you keep reinserting it means you are edit-warring. First off: Your very own source says your claim is not true. I quote James Gunn in that article: “For the record, that was never a scene in the movie – that’s simply @NathanFillion clowning around on set." Second, as you've demonstrated before, you are unfamiliar with many Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices. Per WP:BLP, the first time you were reverted you were supposed to come to the talk page and — and this is the important part — gain consensus with other editors. You have not gained consensus here.


 * If you revert again, you are disrupting Wikipedia and, as before, this will be brought to admins' attention. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And the fact remains that you continue to violate the Wikipedia policies, by engaging in WP:BULLY, WP:CIVILITY, and most of all WP:HOUNDING. If you have a SPECIFIC issue with me -- you should take it to my talk-page which you have not done. Thereby if you do it again, "it will be brough to admins' attentions". --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way has been bullying or hounding you? You're choosing to defy basic WP:3RR guidelines and edit war as opposed to discussing the information. Rusted AutoParts 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In the way that they have referenced "as before" -- there's a history here which is all in direct correlation to WP:BULLY, WP:CIVILITY by WP:HOUNDING. All I said has no argumentative nature, simply stating the facts.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion should be included in the paragraph as he WAS cast to portray the character in still-photo cameo; regardless of the fact that he was 'horsing around' on the set of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and released his own photo on his Twitter account. Gunn HAS stated that he is a fan of the idea of Fillion as Wonder Man, and in a sly comment said "we shall see ;)". The guy has included Howard the Duck, and talked about the Spaceknights being in the MCU -- it's very clear what the plan is. Though we cannot state so until he explicitly states such, the fact remains that Fillion had cameo scenes which were removed from the final cut of the film. Simply stating such in the Cast paragraph is constructive in that it gives credit where there would have been, had the scenes remained. No need to be demeaning when stating your opinion Tenebrae.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There is so much speculation and POV conclusion-drawing in that anon IP's post it's not worth responding to. Nathan Fillion does not appear in the movie. Whatever may or may not be included in home-media releases is for the home-media section whenever something concrete is announced. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Per James Gunn tweet "@NathanFillion was Simon Williams in some movie POSTERS in a scene cut from the movie." Fillion himself never cameos in the film. The couple of fannish cites cited in this removed content were giving purely speculative extrapolation of that. Lots and lots of stuff gets cut from a film during editing — the plot and cast section only includes what's in the actual film itself. Extraneous claims go in trivia section, or home-media section or some other section. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Though I can agree with you on this topic, User:Tenebrae, Gunn has now stated in the Facebook Live Q&A he did that: "...Nathan’s only cameo in the movie ever were these posters. I’ll post them all over the next few days. And, yes, I think we can consider them canon for the MCU, and I hold onto hope that Simon Williams will rise again!!" You can read the whole comment | here in which the writer/director states that he purposefully casted Fillion as the character, but couldn't find an excuse to give him screentime. Sounds like the role will evolve into something more prominant though, from that direct quote. Just a thought.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

With the writer and director confirming the posters as canon to the MCU, and stating that the character will reappear in the franchise, shouldn't that be listed on the cast information paragraph. I mean it would make more sense to have something canon listed there, rather than the alternate take information regarding Stan Lee's outtake scenes which are currently there....--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in this discussion, the fact that he does not appear in the finished film seems more important than the canonicity. He is mentioned in the production prose, which seems sufficient. And for the record, Gunn said, "I hold onto hope that Simon Williams will rise again," which is not confirmation that he will reappear. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Concur with DinoSlider. First off, I'm glad DisneyMetalhead and I are speaking more collegially — I genuinely hoped we would, and I hope it continues. Secondly, neither Filion himself nor the posters are in the film. And aside from Gunn not being the final word about what's canon, it's hard to reconcile how something on the cutting-room floor could be canon. In past statements, Gunn has admitted to the Filion stuff as just him having fun on set with a friend. That really doesn't make it part of the movie.


 * However, I would say that since Gunn has made it public, this might be perfectly appropriate for Nathan Filion's own page. What do you think DisneyMetalhead?--Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention in the production section is good enough regarding the originally intended cameo. The director/writer clearly states that he resorted to a very cool photographic cameo because he didn't want to "limit" Fillion's abilities to come back in the future. That, in addition to saying that he hopes the character will "rise again" definitely merits a mention on the actor's page, as well as the Wonder Man page. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I genuinely agree with all that is being said right now, User:Tenebrae. Especially with 50.232.205.246, in saying - why on Earth are some of Stan Lee's outtakes mentioned in a section that isn't meant to be for 'movie trivia', nor what-if scenarios. Something 'canon' definitely outweighs an outtake.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-production seems a viable compromise. One thing, however: Whether Gunn considers it canon is irrelevant personal opinion. He's a hired-gun director, and other directors may not consider it canon. The only person who can call it canon is Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"Sneepers"
I get the impression that Gunn never meant to name Sneepers in the film proper, as very few background aliens have their species named onscreen. The story as Gunn originally told it -- and as we report it here -- didn't make a whole lot of sense for this reason. But "The Sneepers" were the (presumably?) made up band that played the remixed Guardians theme with lyrics sung by the Hoff during the end credits (see Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (soundtrack)). I suspect some reliable sources have already clarified that this was likely the reason he needed to clear the name for use in the film, and if not then they probably will at some point so we should look out for that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Marvel Easter Egg Easter-egg links
I noticed an IP piping "his ex-teammates" and then immediately self-reverting.

I think it's probably inappropriate to have links like that, but I'm wondering if there's any substantial difference between this and the following sentence's link to Adam Warlock. The only justification I can think of for having one link and not the other is that "Adam" doesn't refer to anything seen within the film itself and so would be more naturally assumed to be a reference to something from the comics that non-fans are not expected to know and so might comd to Wikipedia to find out, whereas the older Guardians were seen earlier in the film and that scene specifically referred to the events of the film.

But is that enough to justify linking one but not the other? The "Cast" section already explains that Stakar's ex-teammates are the original Guardians from the comics, and the "Development" section mentions that Adam Warlock was originally in the script, was cut, but will be in future films and is alluded to in a mid-credits sequence, so I'm wondering if it would be better just to remove the link in the plot summary section and expect our readers to read further to find out who "Adam" is.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A discussion on this was begun above at if you want to continue it there. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Third paragraph of plot summary is inaccurate
The first part takes Ego at his word, but it was pretty clear that he was lying. Forming a human guise, he traveled the universe to escape his loneliness and discover a purpose, eventually falling in love with Quill's mother Meredith. should be qualified somewhere with a "he says", since (1) he obviously wasn't genuinely lonely (his plan, the whole time, was to exterminate all life but himself) and (2) he tricked a lot of women into breeding with him and killed Peter's mother (and presumably all the others) so the unqualified claim that he did fall in love with her is dubious.

Also, the fact that Peter only turned on Ego when Ego admits to having murdered Peter's mother (which admission, admittedly, influences my interpretation that he was lying about having been in love with her) probably should be mentioned (on a quick scan, I couldn't find any mention to Peter's mother's death having been caused by Ego anywhere in the article).
 * EDIT: My mistake. I "Ctrl+F"ed the words "tumo(u)r" (the word used in the film) and "cancer" but what I should have searched was "death". I did read over it, but it appears to have been in the wrong place, which might have also contributed. Sorry if I am misremembering the order of events, but even if I am misremembering my own poor memory would be a valid excuse for having missed the reference, as it was out of order with how I thought the plot went. 12:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know we have word-count issues and plot summaries are allowed to be sourced directly to film itself (they shouldn't be, but at present they are), and some of the above is just my interpretation, but one has to understand that it is just someone else's interpretation that is currently in the article. This is why I think plot summaries should be based on reliable secondary sources as I outlined here. And no, I don't want to discuss interpretation of policy and guidelines on the article talk page. If others think that "he says" doesn't belong ... well, I will probably just agree to disagree.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we already cover both points: the paragraph does begin with "Ego explains"; and Meredith's death is mentioned twice in the paragraph, with the second time being "Quill fights back after Ego reveals that he deliberately caused Meredith's death". - adamstom97 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Second point: Yeah, sorry I missed that. But the order was still messed up -- Quill attacked Ego when the latter suddenly revealed that he deliberately killed Meredith, and then Ego became forceful, saying that he had hoped Quill would work with him willingly. If I recall correctly. I'm gonna rewatch the film later in the week; I don't know how many times you or others have seen it, and I might well be wrong. As an aside, even in the bit of text that I missed, there was the separate problem that it claimed he killed her because his love for her was distracting, which I don't think was hinted at in the film, and I walked out with the impression that he killed her in order to facilitate his abduction of Peter. I can't help but feel that the same kind of hopeless romanticism that leads a lot naive A Song of Ice and Fire fans to think that Rhaegar and Lyanna were star-crossed lovers rather than the former being a manipulative twenty-something who kidnaps a pubescent child in order to breed with her because of her special genes has led some watchers of this film to take someone who is clearly lying between half the time and all the time at his word when it comes to him being in love with Meredith, and have interpreted other stuff in light of their taking him at his word on this point.
 * First point: "Ego explains" doesn't really address the problem; for one thing, it is attached to he is a god-like Celestial, an immortal consciousness that manipulated the matter around it to form the planet with itself at the core, which is not something that can't be taken at face value, as it is not later contradicted and is not self-serving; secondly, "explains" implies a degree of credulity. The second sentence in the paragraph would be better preceded by "Ego claims", or the neutral "Ego states" or "Ego says".
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think "explains" is the correct and most descriptive word. "To explain" is a neutral action having nothing to do with truth or falsehood. Scientists explain things; so does Donald Trump. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, (leaving Trump aside) scientists explain natural phenomena that can be observed and so in some manner elicit explanation. Ego gave two conflicting explanations as to why he traveled the universe (he is lonely so he will exterminate all life he encounters), and to what the purpose of his relationship with Meredith was (he was in love with her so he impregnated her, and countless other aliens across the universe at roughly the same time, before leaving, never to return, and then killed her), one being much more believable and in-line with what turned out (after a plot twist) to be "true". Yes, he says he was in love with Meredith, but he doesn't mention his dozens of other children (who must have all been conceived during roughly the same time as Peter, since Yondu, who is not implied to be immortal, collected them for him, and Mantis, observed what happened to them) until the audience and several of the Guardians have discovered that independently. You thanked me for this edit which removed one of the references to Ego being in love with Meredith, which implies you don't necessarily disagree with me here. But however one interprets the film itself, I don't read "Ego explains" as covering the following three sentences. That might just be me -- I'm pretty pedantic about relative pronouns and tense-shifts, and if I can't convince folks I'll agree to disagree. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way: I guess some of this depends on how one interprets Mantis's line about his insomnia and his "progeny"; I heard that as just referring to Peter when I first saw the film, but I suspect some people might have heard it in its (more common) sense of referring to more than one offspring. This is why I really think plot summaries should be cited to secondary sources, since these discussions can get very slippery. I know (from scrolling up on a user talk page I was posting on recently for another reason) that this particular plot summary was apparently first drafted based on a pre-release screening and so secondary sources would have been impossible to find to begin with, but after the film's release that is no longer really a concern. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate your hard work and analysis, but it's interpretive POV. All I'm saying is that the word "explains" is correct per dictionary definition, which says nothing about truthfulness. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I know, and you are right. I am just saying that it is difficult to read "explains" as covering the following two sentences as well. It's only a subtle tense-shift that marks them as being part of "Ego's explanation" and not something we are describing in Wikipedia's voice. I would nearly prefer to put the first sentence in Wikipedia's voice to something like Ego, a god-like Celestial and immortal consciousness that manipulated the matter around it to form the planet with itself at the core, explains that, forming a human guise, he traveled the universe to escape his loneliness and discover a purpose, eventually falling in love with Quill's mother Meredith. In case anyone thinks I am sincerely proposing this messy alternative, I stress the word nearly. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds fine, as long as we aren't getting too run-ony. As for the end of paragraph, Ego uses his hypnotic-whatever to force Peter to help him first. Ego just doesn't get aggressive until after Peter fights back. It is still all against Peter's will. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you guys want to put something in to this effect, I'd be glad to go in and tidy it to keep it from being run-on. I can see right now that we could lose "escape his loneliness" since "discover a purpose" covers that and pretty much anything else. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tried something out based on Hijiri's wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Cats not matching description in body of article?
A few of the categories (Films set in Missouri, Films set in 1980) are clearly accurate to the film itself, but those details are not mentioned anywhere in the article itself. I couldn't find anywhere in WP:CAT where this was covered, so I'm not sure if this is normal, but would it be better to sub-out set in the 1980s in the cast section in favour of set in Missouri in 1980? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also not sure about the exact details of how we deal with categories, but I think your suggestion sounds like a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Not advocating one way or another, but just throwing out there for consideration: At 670 words, we do have room to add something like "In 1980 Missouri, Meredith Quill marvels that she is in love with 'a spaceman.' " --Tenebrae (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't think we need to mention that scene in the plot (it is a nice teaser when watching the film, but we cover it again later in the summary). I think we could note it when we talk about the scene for Ego in the cast section, and I'm sure it could come up again at some point in the production section if we need it to. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Adamstom. That's a bit too much detail on a minor point. The actual purpose of that scene in the plot was to show Ego planting one of those seed-devices, not to find out that Meredith was in love with a spaceman (which as far as I can tell is a deliberately anachronistic use of a dated term for a human astronaut). But mentioning that seemingly minor point would give the reader the wrong impression of how the scene "feels" in the film (I think our summary should feed the reader information in the same order as the film itself).
 * And I realized while writing the above that An opening scene set in Missouri in 1980 shows Peter Quill's parents' courtship. would essentially avoid both problems. Yes, it's still a minor point, but mentioning in the plot summary that the film opens in 1980 might be better than implyong as we do that it begins "In 2014".
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as a small aside — and I think adamstom97 solved the Missouri/1980s category issue, below — Meredith wasn't being deliberately anachronistic. What with the alien plant and all, she understood Ego was a space alien ... what is colloquially called a spaceman. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, not advocating one way or another, but just editing to make the sentence in-universe: "In 1980 Missouri, Peter Quill's parents-to-be profess their love as an alien plant takes bloom." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added Missouri to Ego's cast paragraph anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Brilliant solution! That solves it! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

David Hasselhoff cameo digitally de-aged?
Was the Hoff de-aged as well? I'm not that familiar with him and so I didn't go into the film knowing what he looked like in the 1980s, let alone what he looks like now. I just assumed that since Peter wouldn't recognize modern Hasselhoff, his appearance would have been digitally de-aged to how he looked in the 1980s like Kurt Russell in the opening sequence. The cited source is a bit unclear about this, as it is more focused on the mid-credits song the Hoff sings. Has anyone seen any other sources discussing this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, no, Hasselhoff appears as he is now (I guess he is still pretty recognizable though). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Hasselfhoff appears as he is in modern-day. He is not de-aged to his 1980s appearance.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph layout
Someone on here keeps on reverting editors' constructive edits in regards to proper grammar. I bring this up because there have been several editors who have made the paragraph involving extra cast more to-the-point and in the same style as other pages. However, these edits keep on being reverted and without reason. I would like whoever keeps doing it to come to this section and 'own' their actions, and then tell the rest of us why they keep doing it? It's edit-warring and you have no reason to revert others' edits except to edit-war. It's frustrating as anything to watch such behavior occur on Wikipedia over and over and over. Particularly User:DisneyMetalhead has brought up those edits before on this talk page, just a couple of paragraphs above here, and no one had issues with those edits while the discussion occurred. Whoever is doing it needs to A) stop, or B) come here and explain what their reasoning is.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This user is referencing where I change the run-on sentences to read the actors listed first, and then who they all play second with the word 'respectively' afterward. For example: "Additionally, reprising their roles from the first film are ____. _____, ____. and _____, as _____, ____, ____, and ___ respectively." And then the paragraph continues to ramble on in a run-on sentence each time it lists the teams: Yondu's Ravagers, and Yondu and Stakar's Ravager Elders teams. Rather than following format, and proper English they say: "____ as ____, ____ as ____, ____ as ____....." which is poor English and a run-on sentence. Listing them as I had each and every edit, in the above example eliminates the over usage of "as" in what they are now, deletes excessive paragraph size, condenses information, and follows proper paragraph and sentence structures. Thanks 50.232.205.246 for picking up on that. Get's old making constructive edits only to have petty reversals done by multiple editors.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That formatting is just unnecessarily difficult for people to read. With long lists of actors and their characters like that, it is best to make it clear to the reader who is playing whom (rather than readers having to count through the list to match up any specific one you want). There is no problem with saying "Here is a list of actors and their characters:" and then listing them in a simple way for people to read. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue with the way you keep reverting it to is that it's improper English. As Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia - grammar and structure should be important. The formatting I changed the paragraph to (multiple times now) is the correct way, and has been used on countless other pages.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the English, and I think writing in the clearest way for our readers is the way we want to go. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, which is why correct English should be used. Using a consistent format with the rest of similar listings elsewhere would make sense to me. I don't know how are why it is that you think your edit 'makes more sense'? Run-on sentences become very very messy.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, if we are trying to convey a list of actors and their characters, the easiest way would be to put the actors with their respective characters. Anything else is just being unhelpful for irrelevant reasons, like thinking you are doing it the "proper" way. If readers can't get the information we are trying to give them simply because of you want to be "correct", then you might need to rethink your priorities. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The logic on this thread is hilarious. Literally, funny. What readers have said that they 'can't get the information we are trying to give them'?? Seriously funny argument to try and sway this topic in your favor. Regardless of your reasoning, Wikipedia should remain not just "correct" as you stated but proper in the American English language. That's the discussion here, not the plea that "readers aren't getting our information"! That's a poor argument, and needs to be prioritized itself, as it sounds like a unrelenting editor who does not want to be collaborative.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of "respectively" with long lists like these can often be cumbersome and hard to read. Perhaps there is a better option for the sentence structure. Just so I understand both sides, let's use the first sentence as an example: "Additionally, reprising their roles from the first film are Laura Haddock as Meredith Quill, Gregg Henry as her father, Seth Green as the voice of Howard the Duck, and canine actor Fred as Cosmo." What grammatical rule does this sentence violate to make it a run on sentence? - DinoSlider (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the following two sentences that are in the same layout go on, and on, and on. The concise and correct form of each of them should be the 'respectively' format I have edited it to several times. However, since this is a debate -- what alternative do you suggest, User:DinoSlider?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So there is no actual rule being violated here? You just don't like it? Good to know. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Any English course will teach you to never use run-on sentences. It's that simple, User:Adamstom.97.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't currently have a suggestion, but I am always hopeful that a compromise exists. I saw phrases like "improper English" and "run-on sentences" being used and I wanted to find out the rationale was. Personally, I believe the existing sentences are properly structured, so I am genuinely interested to find out what might be wrong with them. Without knowing the root of the objection, it is difficult to propose a new suggestion. As for the use of "respectively", there are grammarians who advise restructuring sentences to avoid the usage since it can lead to confusion. Most instances use two or three items, but sentences like these would compound that issue. Run-on sentences, on the other hand, are multiple independent clauses without proper punctuation. That does not appear to be the case here. Sentences can be long-winded or monotonous without being a run-on. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. You are confusing modern (21st-century) American English writing style with "English". Please see this. I dislike the writing style in some of these terribly-written MCU Good Articles as much as the next guy (see here and here), but one must distinguish between one's own personal preferences and what is objectively more readable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Hijiri88 are you WP:HOUNDING me? You've never been involved in the discussion here. As for User:DinoSlider's questioning - I am talking about the section which talks about Stallone's team of Ravagers. The over-usage of commas and the words 'as' and 'and' repetitively within the sentence is poor structure. It is a run on sentence as it goes longer than it need be. The fact that it is 'long-winded' and 'monotonous' as you stated, means it needs some repairs. The general accepted format on most similar pages is "____, ___, and ___ as ___, ___, and ____ respectively" -- where is your source for 'grammarians' saying to not use the word respectively? I in my own American English studying have never heard that. I could be wrong, not saying I'm not - I've just never read that or heard it til now.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been working on articles on MCU topics longer than you have. I was ignoring this article until three days ago to avoid spoilers because I hadn't seen the film yet. And no, I don't need a source to contradict your unsourced claims; if you say something without providing a source, anyone can challenge you as they wish, and your responding with where is your source for 'grammarians' saying to not use the word respectively (which by the way is not what I said) is pretty ridiculous. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not following what you consider "poor structure". I'm not an expert, but it looks like a properly formed sentence to me. As I stated before, it does not appear to meet the criteria to be a run-on sentence. Converting it to respectively will not alleviate your concerns of long-windedness, monotony, or "longer than it need be". In fact, it will only add more commas. One way to solve those issues would be to split it into several smaller sentences, but I'm not sure how other editors would feel about that. Breaking up the monotony would entail adding other details and varying sentence layouts, not changing the sentence structure of how to describe a list in prose. Since you asked, here is an example of why not to use respectively.

WP:EGG links for post-credit info in plot?
W should not link to Adam Warlock, as his full name is never stated in the film (much like Thanos, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Cosmo and Howard the Duck, appearing in various post-credit scenes of previous films). His should be this: Ayesha creates a new artificial being with whom she plans to destroy the Guardians, naming him "Adam".[ref note explaining how it was confirmed to be Adam Warlock]. I'm also torn on linking to Watchers (comics) for the same reason as them not being called that or mentioned in the film, although because Stan Lee's cameo is "Watcher informant", maybe that one is okay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I felt that both were fine because the film essentially says Adam Warlock and the credits state Watcher, and we have plenty of sources throughout the article that explain both. I just thought we would have to clarify with those sources and the note formatting if anyone specifically had an issue with it (like how we only add refs to the lead when there is a dispute about something). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that Easter Egg links are generally discouraged, but since both are elaborated elsewhere in the article a case could be made for IAR. (Alternatively, add a comma and an in-line elaboration after "his ex-teammates" and link that; we can't really do that with Adam, so that would still need to be an Easter Egg.) One caveat, though, is that if we link one we should link the other. The present version linking Adam Warlock but not the old Guardians team is a bit silly.
 * I was going to say that actually I don't think we even need to limit ourselves to "in-universe" descriptions that match what could be gleaned by non-fans watching the film itself, since with all the above-mentioned cases (Thanos, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Cosmo and Howard the Duck) third-party reliable sources could easily be found to state their identities, but then I remembered that such sources almost uniformly assumed, for more than a year after the first Avengers film, that Thanos would be the primary antagonist in Avengers 2.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding "something we can't really do with Adam": Sorry, this thought had occurred to me but it felt like one of those bad ideas one has that should never be put to words -- Adam, a reference to Adam Warlock from the comics.? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We can link to Watcher (comics) since they're named in the end-credits. We cannot link to Adam Warlock in the plot section, since that comes from our own personal knowledge and not something in the manifest content of the film itself.


 * I do note that while consensus was not to link to Mjolnir (comics) from the plot of the Iron Man 2, an editor did do so here after the film Thor came out (and apparently no one noticed since it went unremarked upon in the Iron Man 2 talk page). The propriety of that edit aside, I can see an argument could be made for linking to Adam Warlock from the plot once a movie comes out that actually confirms for people without personal knowledge that this is Adam Warlock (assuming it is; Silver Samurai in the films wasn't the one in the comics). But until then, no, it's a violation of policy and of FILMMOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion on "his ex-teammates"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * General rule of thumb from WP:EASTEREGG:
 * For example, do not write this:
 * ...and by mid-century the puns and sexual humor were (with only a few exceptions) back in to stay.
 * The readers will not see the hidden reference to Thomas Bowdler unless they click or hover over the piped exceptions link. In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost.(emphasis mine)
 * DonQuixote (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the Adam link with a note. I don't feel like we need to do the same for "his ex-teammates" since, unlike Warlock, they are explained in the cast section. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thing is, though, Adam is explained in the "Development" section, in a manner that's arguably more prominent than "his ex-teammates" (Adam's inclusion in and then later exclusion from the film is given essentially an entire paragraph, with the reference to him being emphasized in the last sentence of the section; the original Guardians, on the other hand, are explained in one of those blue messes that a casual reader is very likely to gloss over). If the cast section came before the plot summary but the production section came after, I could understand reasoning that an explanation in the cast section justifies an Easter Egg link more than an explanation in the production section, but both come after the plot summary. Also, as I elaborated below, "his ex-teammates" isn't currently linked -- are you saying it should be? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that "his ex-teammates" should be Easter Egg linked, I meant it shouldn't have anything, because then the logical place to look for an explanation would be the cast section, I feel. Warlock would be the same (no link, look to the cast section for more), but since he is not mentioned in the cast section, he should have a special note in case readers don't know to look through the production section for the info. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree there should be no link to "ex-teammates." In fact, given the context, that group of Ravagers isn't really a "team" so much as the ship's crew of Stallone's character. "his former crew-members" might be more accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that wording mostly comes from the sources in the cast section, which mostly discuss the group as Stallone's team. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh. That's a pretty small crew for a space ship. But then Star-Lord's ship can apparently function fine with just him. I guess it depends on whether one's view of how sci-fi space ships should work comes more from Star Wars or Star Trek. But if we're comparing to Star-Lord, then if we knew as much about him as we do about Stallone's character from just the films, we might think Gamora, Drax, Rocket and Groot were Quill's "crew" as well. Whatever the sources say, for the time being, is fine. Honestly I wonder what the relevance of some of the stingers is to a plot synopsis, especially when both the Stallone and Adam Warlock ones are already explained elsewhere in the article. (I get the filling this was probably discussed elsewhere, but that was probably before this film with five stingers, at least two of which are obviously not going to be plot hooks for later films, was released.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There has been discussion on this somewhere else I think, but if we do want to remove any of the descriptions from the plot, we should probably keep the ones about Stallone, Warlock, and Lee since they are discussed quite a bit elsewhere and the whole point of the plot summary is to provide context for those other discussions. At that point, I feel like removing the other two brief lines would just cause problems from those wondering why two of the five are not included, and having them doesn't seem like all that big a deal to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thing is, though, we're not providing context for those discussions, as those discussions are already more detailed than that in the plot synopsis section. Neither Lee nor Stallone is mentioned, and we seem to be in pretty general agreement that even linking most of the relevant articles is inappropriate in the plot synopsis. Essentially the only context it serves to provide for the later discussions is that they are mid-/post-credits scenes.
 * Adding the fact that Stakar's crew appear in a mid-credits scene to our discussion of those characters in the cast section would not be difficult, and would arguably be more readable (again, very few people are reading this article closely from start to finish, so keeping the context-setting as close to the rest of the description as possible is probably better).
 * The same for the Adam Warlock bit. Scratch that -- the Warlock discussion further down already provides the information that he is hinted at in a mid-credits scene, thus making the earlier context-setting redundant. That, plus the fact that without an Easter Egg link, the reference to "Adam" doesn't make much sense in itself in the plot summary, anymore than the scene made internal sense to movie-watchers who weren't deeply immersed in Marvel cosmic lore. I didn't get it until I got home and checked Wikipedia, and even famed comics nerd Linkara figured it out spontaneously while shooting his post-viewing vlog.
 * With Stan Lee ... I dunno. The later discussion in the cast section actually is not about the post-credits scene (which was just a random gag -- the information that's worth discussing actually comes from the earlier scene). So our "context-setting", if anything, is actually misleading in that it might cause readers to think it is about the post-credits scene.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Stan Lee

 * 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.

Should the plot summary section mention that "the watchers' informant" is Stan Lee? One position holds that cast should only be mentioned in the cast section, which does mention Lee's cameo in a bit more detail. The other argues that this plot point is incomprehensible without knowing that it's the Lee cameo. Thoughts from others would be welcome. john k (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How is that important to the plot? It should probably be mentioned in Cast or Production. DonQuixote (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How is the cameo important to the plot at all? The only thing relevant about it is that it is a Stan Lee cameo. Mentioning it without explaining that it is Stan Lee does a disservice to readers. I'd be happy to remove it from the plot section entirely. john k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope Plot is for the plot, cast section is for the cast and cameos. A reader can perfectly understand the scene in the plot section as is without there being a mention of it being Lee's cameo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The only "plot" going on there is "Ha, ha, it's Stan Lee talking to the Watchers." That is literally all that is happening. john k (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No - I don't think it should mention that clip (or the one with Kraglin) at all. It's entirely irrelevant to the plot and will not be significant in later films either. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with this solution. john k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, and the only reason there is that one line about it in the plot is because we talk about the cameo quite a bit in the rest of the article so the line there just gives all that a bit of context. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it your assumption that people read Wikipedia articles in their entirety? john k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside from specifying that it's a post-credit scene, I think the discussion under cast provides the same amount of context as the line in the plot. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No since that's the actor's name, not the character's name. The character even says he was a FedEx employee, IIRC. Stan Lee was never a FedEx employee. It's an actor playing a character, and per the onscreen credits, the character designation is the Watchers' informant.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Why does that matter? You're making a distinction with no explanation why that distinction should guide our content. john k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Real-world information doesn't belong in the plot section. Additionally, it is trivial and adds no value to the plot, so I would be okay with removing the scene entirely as Argento Surfer suggested. - DinoSlider (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No Summoned by a bot. I agree with the consensus above that the info is better suited for the character section of the page. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No I don't even think the plot summary should mention the informant, or the Watchers, or any of the stingers. It was one thing back in Iron Man where there was one short post-credits scene that explicitly told us what was coming down the line, but now we are giving excruciating detail on these relatively minor scenes. There is plenty of room to cover this material elsewhere in the article, and in fact much of it (such as Adam Warlock) already is. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No It's not part of the plot in this movie. Mention in cast/cameo section as a Easter egg. WikiVirusC (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2017 (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.

Good Article nomination period notice
This is just a notice, that since we now know the home media release date, the article has until September 22, 2017 to be nominated as a good article, in order to be added to the Marvel Cinematic Universe films Good Topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you not nominate it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Per initial comment. We have until September 22, 2017 to nominate, and the film still should generally be out of the theaters (which I believe it is not) it also nominate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there should be something in the Critical response section about Baby Groot, especially since so many media sources consider him the main highlight of the film. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What exactly? Also, does this have anything to do with the article being able to be nominated for GA? If not, can you please create a separate subheading for us to discuss? I did not want to alter your intended placement myself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just some reception material, Favre1fan93, that's all. To me, it stands out as a glaring omission. I saw this section a week or so ago and meant to comment sooner than later, but life got in the way. I just wanted to go ahead and make that suggestion before the GA nomination. I didn't want to suggest it during the GA review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 September 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved Speedy closed, as the film has never officially or through third party sources, been referred to with a colon. (non-admin closure) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 → Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 – The title without a colon does not make any proper sense. 2A00:23C0:4386:3001:DD1B:17B0:DA48:462E (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * On the official website of Marvel the headline of the film does not have a colon. Renaming is nonsense. - KeymixGame (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close, we are not obliged to accept multiple film RMs contrary to existing sources from a dynamic IP. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2017 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6p85GVSXD?url=http://www.empireonline.com/movies/guardians-galaxy-2/guardians-galaxy-vol-2-see-three-exclusive-new-images/ to http://www.empireonline.com/movies/guardians-galaxy-2/guardians-galaxy-vol-2-see-three-exclusive-new-images/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comingsoon.net/dvd/news/865661-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-blu-ray

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Walt Disney Company CEO"...
Hey, I'm curious: I thought this was one of those issues I just walked away from because I didn't want to fight over it, but my preferred version seems to be live at the moment. What happened? Was it fixed because "The Walt Disney Company CEO" was awkward? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Cites attached to basic character descriptions in cast section?
I'm curious about these. Most of them don't seem to be specifically supported by the cites, which seem to actually be used to verify that Actor X is playing Character Y, but shouldn't that be attached to "Actor X as Character Y:" rather than the following line? As is, it looks like we are trying to source in-universe character descriptions like The half-human, half-Celestial leader of the Guardians of the Galaxy who was abducted from Earth as a child and raised by a group of alien thieves and smugglers called the Ravagers., and obviously nothing in the 2014-2015 sources could verify that content. WP:FILMCAST doesn't seem to say anything about this (and having recently been involved in a discussion on that guidelines talk page, I can all but guarantee that that is not an accident but a deliberate decision not to do so). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What role was Awrightawrightawright in talks to play?
Could you stop attempting to communicate through edit summaries? It's not hard for me to assume that this came out as terse and presumptuous about what I was doing because of character-count concerns on your part, but I wasn't "projecting" anything or saying it "must" be anything; as the reason parameter should have made clear, I don't have that level of certainty about anything to do with this issue. The cast section of the article makes it clear (in a manner that, although cited exclusively to WP:PRIMARY sources, seems completely plausible per the criterion of embarrassment) that the character of Ego was meant to be Peter's father from the early stages of the film's development, and since Ego is a villain in both the comics and the final version of the film, it seems likely that his role in this film's story ("the antagonist") was constant throughout development. I don't think McConaughey was in talks to play Ego, for both the reasons I gave in the reason parameter (he's too young to play Pratt's father, and Russell was almost certainly already in talks to play the character anyway, even though the implication is that McConaughey was offered whatever part it was and he turned it down) and the following: right up until the film's release, the vast majority of marketing and third-party "buzz" around the film had been portraying Russell as Quill's father being a protagonistic character, and the Sovereign as the film's principal antagonists; apparently there were even fake lines recorded for TV spots about the Sovereign plotting to destroy the universe or some such.

Put simply, I'm not projecting onto the source that it must mean he was going to play Ego; I'm projecting onto the source that it probably didn't mean he was going to play Ego, but was going to portray a lesser antagonistic character whom the marketing was going to prop up as the primary antagonist.

"The" antagonist of the film was always going to be Kurt Russell's character, but none of the pre-release marketing surrounding the film wanted to reveal that, so of course they're going to refer to someone else as "the villain". This is not dissimilar to how everything about the Iron Man 3 article had to be overhauled once the film came out and we all realized we had been duped. (Four years later, that article is still an OR mess with us tleling the "real story" behind what our pre-release sources were unwilling to reveal, even though said pre-release sources are still cited throughout, BTW.) I honestly think it's an NOR violation that I would never do if this was an article on an "obscure" Japanese poet that I was essentially solely responsible for, but what would folks say to changing "the film's antagonist" to "an antagonist in the film"?

(And it's peripheral, but once again I would ask you to please re-read WP:NOR, particularly the last sentence of the first paragraph. This is like the third or fourth time this year that you have accused me of OR for analyzing a source and questioning whether something questionable in the article should be removed, not added.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Script
http://waltdisneystudiosawards.com/media/scripts/GotG2.pdf as per https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/933032326530867200 not going to be WP:BOLD and just add it in due to the GAN, but possibly useful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is this if you want to include it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did the ping wrong. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As fascinated as I personally am that James Gunn actually released the full script, I'm not sure where it could suitably be implemented. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing big just perhaps a link in External links or something? I know this might seem small but I didn't want to make a possibly controversial change like that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly not a contentious change, just one where I don't see how it would benefit. While EL if anywhere probably would be the best place, I've never seen it posted in film articles before and was at a loss for any use it could have. Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 17:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Why was this article promoted to GA?
Serious questions were raised on the GAN and never addressed. And worse, the same questions had been raised and not addressed in the previous GAN, causing it not to pass. And there's the fact that the article is not stable, which was not raised on the GAN but is definitely the case and should be an auto-fail factor. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can find details on why this article was promoted to GA at Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA2. If you believe this was not the correct result of the review, then WP:GAR may be helpful to you. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri, while I do edit these articles somewhat frequently, I often disagree with the viewpoints of the main few that does and do not think I'm actively involved enough to be in that section. That said, you have been constantly antagonistic against the work being done rather than proposing solutions or alternatives, to the point that it seems like a personal vendetta (to me anyway). I've admittedly not seen your interactions with these articles or their frequent contributors very often, but between this post, your derailing of the Black Panther GA review, and the since-discovered badgering of a word choice on Doctor Strange, I'm not exactly sure what your end goal is here. If it's to cause frustration, not collaborate, and prevent progress towards improvement, you're doing a remarkable job. Sock   ( tock talk)  15:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All comments of the GA reviewer (which you were not) were address. If you feel differently, WP:GAR can help as Adam noted. I also feel you don't have any understanding of what a "stable article" is either, because this very much is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)