Talk:Iron Man 2/Archive 2

Black Widow
Not sure if this changes anything however the Blu-Ray extras of Iron Man 2 states that Natasha Romanoff uses the alias Black Widow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Shes also refered to as Black Widow on the back cover and throughout many of special features.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Deja vu all over again! :)  We've gone through some variation of this with just about every Marvel movie (Kid Omega in X-Men: The Last Stand made for a particularly long issue) and others, including the titles of the films Die Hard 2 and Superman. I can tell you from long experience the consensus has always been that the only canon is what's on the movie screen itself, and that marketing people, publicists, etc. aren't the filmmakers. Trust me on this, or check out the archived discussions. I swear it'll save us all a lot of time! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't involed in those articles, but that seems perfectly acceptable. Also its good to get this out the way here as it will no doublty be brought up.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Stan Lee, Himself or Larry King?
IMDB has him listed as "Himself", which would make the part where Hogan and Stark 'mistake' him for King actually be funny. As opposed to him playing Larry King, off set with no distinguishing trademark suspenders, and simply being recognized. I vote "Played himself and was mistaken for King". Can someone check the DVD credits? Padillah (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that myself. A couple of articles and web searches seem to indicate that he was asked to play Larry King, though IMDB says "Himself."  I'll have to rewatch the scene. --Magmagirl (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The scene tells us nothing. It could be interpreted either way. It's simply Happy leading Tony down some stairs and Lee is standing there. Happy introduces him as Larry King and they blow right past. It could be Happy introducing him as the actual Larry King and Tony doesn't care, or it could be Happy is in a hurry and all old men look alike... It's not really clear. The only issue I have is that Lee has never presented himself as anyone of any significance in any other Marvel film. Why do it in this one? I own the DVD but I keep forgetting to check the credits. When in doubt, go to the actual film credits. Padillah (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the film credits on the BluRay and they list Stan Lee as "Himself" so it is a case of him being mistaken for Larry King, not playing Larry King. We've got our answer. Padillah (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anybody know how to reference the films credits? I removed the ref that was there but I'm not sure how to reference the film credits. Or do we just ref the film?
 * BTW, the ref that was there went to a pre-release article that speculated, based on content of the scene, what Stan's role would be. Now that we have credits we can refer to we should use those. Padillah (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies: when I edited to post the following comment, I did not see any other comments here after my previous one (don't know why), and did not intend to delete anyone else's comments.  So...Update: Jim Salicrup advised me that Stan Lee played himself in both "Iron Man" films. In the first, he was mistaken for Hugh Hefner, and in the second, he was mistaken for Larry King. But he played himself. --Magmagirl (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All good; we've had some incidents in the past with deletions, so I might have jumped the gun. RE Jim: That's good to know, but of course, we have to use only the film credits as reference since we can't use claimed personal knowledge for anything. I know Jim well myself, but (equally of course) there's no way &mdash; and no reason &mdash; to prove it. In fact, I could be lying. Which (finally of course) is the point. (Though I'm sure both I and Magmagirl are telling the truth.) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also sure we're both telling the truth. What I didn't get from Jim is whether his knowledge came from watching the films carefully, or conversation with Stan Lee.  How cool that we both know Jim!  I met him as a mutual friend of Fred Hembeck.  :-D --Magmagirl (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kelzorro and the ref quote
Kelzorro, just because the person disagreeing with you is an admin doesn't mean they are using their admin powers to force you to do anything. If you had read WP:BRD you would know the proper response for a revert of a bold edit is to take it to the talk page and discuss the edit... NOT throw fits and call people names. Now, I happen to agree with JGreb that the quote is not necessary in the ref. It's enough that the information is in the article and we can find the quote should that information come into question. Now if you have something constructive to add please feel free to engage in productive discussion. If you are going to call me names and tell me how I'm just kowtowing to an admin - save it. Padillah (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the first instance. Look up above. Director says himself that the "new element" is vibranium. But our Admin friend here wants to see how he can push his powers around and revert the edits. Call it what you want, but it is what it is. I mean Captain America's shield was in the damn movie. That's so obvious that even a blind mole can see it.Kelzorro (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No Kelzorro, it's an interest in keeping with standing consensus not to put material - names in most cases - not used in the film itself in the plot and cast sections. There is also a concern about adding "trivia" to other sections. Adding nomenclatrue from the comics to an artilcle on the film can be trivial, espciially when not dealing with characters.
 * As for the "blind mole" comment: Fan based assumptions about content is original researc. And that is exactly wht you adding your evaluation is.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And even aside from these content issues, I think it's important to note, Kelzorro, that there's no need for uncivil talk and insulting comments. Unlike Congresspeople and talk-show hosts, we don't have to play to an audience, and we can discuss things politely like civilized people. Throwing accusations around &mdash; really, why do that? It never helps advance one's position. It just never helps. So why do it? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Being civil, yeah. But I don't like it that J Greb gets to be the only one to add info to the article and remove info that he doesn't seem fit of being "standard." Like his recent edit removing the info about Thor's hammer from the article. He's doing nothing but removing stuff for no reason. Sometimes it's not about "consensus" but about what has been stated. It is the hammer of Thor and it ties into the Marvel movie universe.Kelzorro (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for listening and taking my point with seriousness. Anyone who's been around Wikipedia long enough really learns to appreciate a calm discourse. Honestly, it really isn't just J Greb or another editor simply doing their own personal preferences arbitrarily &mdash; a lot of these issues have been discussed at length; they really have.


 * But that doesn't mean there's not room to polish the detail. Now I think you're right, given that we have post-credits scenes in the plots of Iron Man (film) and X-Men: The Last Stand, that it's reasonable to make a case for doing the same here. I'll go along with you on that &mdash; the scene happened, it's part of the movie's plot, we should include it. And until WikiProject Comics can decide on exactly where &mdash; and I've asked WikiProject Film for advice &mdash; I'd say it doesn't hurt to leave it where it is, live and readable, until we do. I'm sure other editors can meet you halfway on this.


 * The issue of Thor's hammer, though, has been exhaustively discussed, and it comes down to one thing: You and I may "know" it's Thor hammer, but the movie itself doesn't say it. So if you or I say it, we're using our own personal knowledge as fans. And personal knowledge, without citation, isn't allowed. That's considered original research. And it protects us &mdash; I don't know anything but rattlesnake venom, and so I wouldn't be comfortable reading a claim in the rattlesnake venom article that wasn't cited. (And this is all aside from the fact that maybe it's a fake hammer, a clone's hammer, some other god's hammer, whatever. You know comics.) The Thor movie will be out soon, and all questions will be answered.


 * That's the thing about an encyclopedia &mdash; we want to be both absolutely sure ourselves, and sure that readers who don't know anything about the subject will feel equally sure. I can see, very clearly, that you're committed to accuracy, so I know you can appreciate what I'm saying.--Tenebrae (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're going to treat the scene as part of the plot of this movie instead of a tacked on teaser for something else, then let's treat it as plot. Comments that should not be in the plot section are those about:
 * Naming what is found;
 * The "grand tradition"; and
 * Where/when the scene was filmed in relation to the rest of the film.
 * In all honesty, those can be relocated to Iron Man 2. And expanded on slightly to indicate that the scene is a bridge to Thor.
 * - J Greb (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you've hit the nail on the head: That's what seemed off &mdash; the commentary, cited though it was, does not belong in the plot section. I don't know why I was looking right at it and didn't see that. That's exactly the problem, and that's exactly how this was different from the other two examples. J, as always, you cut through the bullshit to clarity!


 * I'll make that change and see what comments we get. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. Someone beat me to it! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. Coulson, in the film, was pulled from watching Tony to go and check out that spot. So technically, it does affect the plot of the movie in some way. So it should be left alone. You guys need to quit changing the article so much and go with what's established, not because you think it's not "right."Kelzorro (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Taken to it's illogical extreme, casting Robert Downey affected the plot. As did the replacement of Terrence Howard. As did the use of CGI... The list could go on and on. This also assumes that, without this scene (and the reasoning behind it) Coulson would not have been pulled off duty for any one of a number o reasons the writers contrived to get him the heck out of the way. The scene is after the credits and is presented as a throw-away scene. If you did not see this scene you would never know. That is what eliminates it from affecting the plot. Padillah (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Locked?
Why is this protected? There is no mention of the reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.153.73 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually for excessive vandalism from anonymous or new users. This is the reason the administrator who protected said in the log: "IP editing to shoehorn in interpretation and a section removed by talk page consensus". It says "indefinite", so you might want to ask the admin, J Greb.  In the meantime you can make an edit request. — Mike   Allen   03:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nithinmanne, 20 April 2011
Please change the so called large hammer in the plot to "the Thor's Hammer"

Nithinmanne (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: if they don't say "Thor's Hammer" in the movie, then we can't include your interpretation per the original research policy. If you can find a reliable source that expresses that interpretation, we can add a note with a reference. — Bility (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Vibranium
How come the text that links to vibranium is taken out? It's not directly called that in the movie, but the presence of Captain America's shield plus the movie novelization makes it clear that it's vibranium.Kelzorro (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They switched to adamantium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.25.99 (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Connection to Thor
With Thor released in Australia, is it safe to refer to the "large hammer at the bottom of a crater" as Mjolnir? --Boycool (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus has been (correct me if I'm wrong) but as is the case with character names, if it is not identified as such on film then we cannot make that identification here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's correct thus far, but I'm wondering (haven't seen Thor yet so I don't know if there's a scene in it that references this film directly)... If a reliable secondary source makes a definitive connection about the Hammer while discussing Thor the film, would be cover it on that article, this one, or both?  Two hypothetical examples I can think of:


 * Favreau or someone connected with the films gives an interview and talks about using this film to set up Thor - I would assume then we could be more direct about the hammer in this article.


 * Film reviewer or other reliable source makes the connection to this film in review for Thor - that's the type of situation I'm kind of fuzzy on how to deal with.  Millahnna (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 2+¢
 * Adding "Thor's hammer" or some such in the plot section of this article isn't going to work. Just as "Picking up from Iron Man 2..." won't work for the article on the Thor film.
 * Adding reliable sourced and verifiably cited critical commentary to the reception section that links the two after Thor's general release may be OK. But it shouldn't be the focus of the section.
 * Similar situation for the production - reliable source that can be verified and properly weighted.
 * And as for going out of our way to find interviews with writers, directors, and/or producers that stress the "arc" of "Iron Man > The Incredible Hulk > Iron Man 2 > Thor > Captain America > Avengers" and beyond... frankly that isn't this article. There's another one where that information should be placed.
 * - J Greb (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mjolnir
Can we please put this issue to bed once and for all? In Thor, the hammer is specifically called Mjolnir. It is sent to Earth and lands in New Mexico, where Agent Coulson spots it. This is the same thing that happens at the end of Iron Man 2. Therefore, the hammer seen in Iron Man 2 is the same one as the one in Thor, which is Mjolnir. Now *please* properly link the hammer to Mjolnir, end this discussion about original research, and let's move on to bigger and more important discussions (like Gdansk vs. Danzig haha). Anthony (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's the same footage in Thor that we see at the end of Iron Man 2.  Now Thor is out, it's settled.  It should either be changed to "...the discovery of a large hammer at the bottom of a crater in a New Mexico desert" or "...the discovery of Mjolnir at the bottom of a crater in a New Mexico desert".  I'd suggest the former as the viewer doesn't necessarily know what it is. Planewalker Dave (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, the former would be an Easter egg link. --Boycool (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good, we've got something that, if well referenced, can slot into the production section. Not the plot. And definitely not as an Easter Egg. The plot section deals with this film, not another one. Since it diesn't name or identify the hammer, neither should the plot section. - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur with J Greb's analysis. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The 1974 Stark Expo: Inspired, or some connection to, Walt Disney's vision of EPCOT?
Everytime I see this particular scene in the second Iron Man film where Tony is viewing his father's old material, the plan for the expo looks a lot like Walt Disney's early vision for EPCOT, which was to be an Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. What later became a theme park after Disney died, was originally visioned as a community similar to what Howard Stark planned for the Expo. My reason for creating this section is merely to ask, is there any connection between the two, and can it be mentioned in the main article? Was Howard's vision for the Expo seen in Iron Man 2 something from the comics, or was it created just for the film? Wiki User - Aidensdaddy2k9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to the DVD commentary, the film with Howard Stark was patterned after Walt Disney. You'd have to ask someone more familiar with the comics if the Expo was in them, but I don't think so. Since "popular culture" sections are banned now, this would be best suited under "Production", provided we had reliable sources. --Boycool (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture sections "banned?" Could someone please provide a little more information on this? Such as why, a few reasons? (My apologies, I seem to still be having trouble with the whole signature thing here --> ) User Aidensdaddy2k9 14:01 27 April 2012

I concur with Aidensdaddy2k9. I immediately recognized this reference, especially Howard Stark's mustache, and the very '60s Disney-esque sounding music in the background (think There's a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow and Miracles from Molecules). This is further evidenced by the fact that Make Way for Tomorrow (Today), the song featured in both the expo film and during the end credits, was written by Richard M. Sherman of The Sherman Brothers. Justin The Claw (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is all interesting but it's original-research speculation. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While I cannot personally corroborate this fact, to quote Boycool, "according to the DVD commentary, the film with Howard Stark was patterned after Walt Disney." I think this therefore goes beyond "original-research speculation."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin The Claw (talk • contribs) 09:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First, Boycoll is not talking about the Expo. He's talking about the promotional film-within-the film. And, yes, when you use phrases like "further evidenced by the fact that," that is clearly an original-research argument you're making. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hammer At The End of Credits
Some others have said that the article should say they found Thor's hammer in the desert at the end. Because of indefinite evidence, which will be given in Avengers in 2012, for now I propose to say after the last sentence in Plot that "many presume the hammer to be Thor's hammer", and link the Thor's hammer part to the main article about the Mjolnir(comics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyonfire (talk • contribs) 07:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should see Thor (film). :) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 10:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

War Machine
Minor change, but the wikilink in the cast section for James Rhodes probably should be changed to Lt. Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes / War Machine to match the formatting for Tony Stark / Iron Man. It seems only logical, as in the wider world of comics, Rhodey is really best known as War Machine, and by the end of the film that's absolutely who he is.

I'd make the same argument for Black Widow, but the connection is, I guess, less obvious in the actual movie. 67.252.191.156 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me save you from a few hundred Wikipedians ready to bite your head off. The consensus is that unless something is explicitly stated in the film (i.e. Rhodey saying, "I am War Machine"; Fury calling Romanoff "Black Widow"; Coulson saying, "Sir, we've found Mjolnir."), then we can't include it. Happy editing. --Boycool (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Small caveat: We can't include it in the "Plot" or "Cast" section. Depending on context, content, and sourcing the terms can crop up in the "Production" and "Marketing" sections. - J Greb (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The head-biting is precisely why I don't bother logging in and doing this stuff myself anymore. Not worth the aggravation.  In any event, there is in fact a scene in the film where Stark, in the Mark IV armor, fights Rhodes, who is wearing the Mark II armor, which is the primary component of the War Machine suit.  Quoth the Iron Man, speaking to Rhodes: "You wanna be the War Machine, take your shot."  You can argue that it's ambiguous and he's using a figure of speech, I suppose, but it's enough to satisfy me.


 * Out of idle curiosity: Where and when did this consensus develop? I have no idea where these discussions take place these days. 67.252.191.156 (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone who has seen the film an embarrassing number of times, I assure he says "a War Machine", not "the". To paraphrase the director, as he stated in the DVD commentary, this is an example of Marvel's tongue-in-cheek use of character names without having the character's directly use them... or something like that. Anyways, I'm fairly sure the consensus was reached on this very talk page (it's been discussed several times, but the original discussion might be archived now) about referring to the hammer at the end as "Thor's hammer" or "Mjolnir". --Boycool (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Very well.  I think this is sort of a ridiculous application of what might be sane policy in other situations, but, whatever.  Someone probably should go edit The Incredible Hulk (film) and remove references to Emil Blonsky being the Abomination on the same grounds.  Nobody ever directly calls him that in the movie, after all, even if there is no question that's who he is.  Thanks, and take care.  67.252.191.156 (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's for the hammer, though "War Machine", "Black Widow", "Whiplash", and "Crimson Dynamo" each had a run IIRC. Earlier runs at fan identification of characters was on X-Men Origins: Wolverine related to "Storm", "Banshee", and "Quicksilver". - J Greb (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what Greb, stuff it. Just because you're an admin doesn't mean you get to make every last decision on this article and shoot down ideas that don't agree with your own. And I'm telling it directly to your face. We are not stupid and neither are the readers. We all know that's War Machine and we all know the fucking hammer is Thor's hammer as Marvel have confirmed it. Iron Man 2 is part of the overall Marvel Cinematic Universe, so it does tie in.Kelzorro (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kelzoro, you are fighting a losing battle. This is Wikipedia, a site where you can't even say 2+2=4 unless you have a good source (and "good" meaning if it's good enough for the big boys in charge). James Rhodes becomes War Machine and Ivan Vanko wears a Crimson Dynamo-like suit, it's bleeding obvious. Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face in The Dark Knight. Emil Blonsky becomes the Abomination in The Incredible Hulk. Thor proves once and for all that the war hammer at the end is Mjolnir. But this is Wikipedia, and sometimes even if you have a good source, it still gets reverted for the most stupid of reasons. You might as well drop it, because you can't win. Jienum (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, it's really ridiculous how these two admins can sit here and dictate what goes in the article despite overwhelming evidence. I mean, how much more fucking proof do you need? Marvel to pop on here and say "this is true and you two are wrong." Even then, it wouldn't be enough. Hell, you can't even say the sky is blue without evidence. No, it's these two that sit here and do nothing but revert edits because they think that whatever they say, it's true. I mean Marvel has been dropping confirmations left and right that the Hammer belongs to Thor, Rhodey is War Machine, Vanko is both Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo in an anglomonation.Kelzorro (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ I'm sorry, but not including it is really, really silly. Look at damn near any marketing for the film (especially in the realm of toys), and it's obvious that the character is considered to be War Machine. For those that can't wrap their head around a single proper noun being in the article without citations, check out War Machine in other media, which has two citations for Rhodes' character being War Machine. Let's find something more worthwhile to bicker about, people. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This edit will no doubt open a can of worms so we might as well nip it in bud now and figure out its implications. What is the minimal standard needed to label a character or object with a widely recognized name? Is the recognition enough or does the character or object have to be marketed as such? Does this new standard also apply to plot sections even if the character or object in question is never directly given the name in film?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to apply WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If reliable sources are calling a comic book character by his pseudonym even though it is never explicitly stated in the film itself, we should go with these sources. We should not treat the primary source as gospel (nor the words of the work's creators as gospel). WP:CHALLENGE needs to be infused with common sense; there should be reasonable doubt that James Rhodes is not War Machine. There's no indication that the character is supposed to be anyone else, and many sources mention "War Machine" with ease. EVula has the right of it, and unfortunately I agree with Jienum's assessment. I wonder how many editors have been put off by the excessively restrictive approach to comic book films. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This keeps going back and forth. First, is Ivan Vanko Whiplash or the Crimson Dynamo? Different people argue differently. So which does "common sense" say he is? The movie itself calls him neither. We have to respect that, same as we respect that fact that the 1980s Hulk TV series called Bruce Banner "David Banner." We don't change the TV producers' intentions and say, "Oh, but comic-book fans all know he's really Bruce Banner."


 * There are reasons filmmakers don't always use comic-book names and other tropes in their movies, which are a different medium. There are reasons filmmakers change details from books that are adapted into movies. We don't add book details from Forrest Gump the movel to the Forest Gump movie plot &mdash; we respect that these are different media and we respect the filmmakers' choices. If James Rhodes is not called War Machine in the movie, then he is not War Machine in the movie. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Ivan Vanko is an amalgamation of two characters, that is a non-obvious detail, but we're able to verify that with a source. For War Machine, there is no other character that could lend a possible confusion. Like I said, the primary source should not be treated as gospel. You could make a case for not explicitly mentioning War Machine in the plot summary, but the "Cast" section is removed from the film itself. It lists actors and their roles, so we're dealing with real-world context here. Official credits are a great starting point, but we should not deny a character the proper label if we find numerous reliable sources using it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Within the plot and cast sections I've got real problems with the "We really know this is..." mentality since it is literally re-writing an aspect of the film. And yes, IMO the cast list is not removed from the film itself. It is a list of the actors by name and the characters they played in the film as named in the film. That's the context, not extending it by other things we happen to know.
 * Outside of those two sections, as long as its sourced, I've got very little problem inclusion of the common names of the source characters. Provided it isn't contradicting the plot and cast section. Yes, I'd love to see a section laying out the source material that the filmmakers' adapted, and IIRC most of the ramp up sources used the code names so it should be sourcable.
 * Last thing since this seems to be more an RfC on the general practice rather than one specific character in this film, this does go a bit beyond what to call Vanko or Banner's dad in The Hulk, it also covers the uncredited "cameos" in films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That's a case where we've been shooting down fan assumptions of Banshee and Quicksilver for years.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ...but why does it matter for the Cast section? I completely get why we shouldn't call Rhodes "War Machine" in the Plot section because everything there should be culled from the source material, but for the Cast section of a film article, we include information outside of the plot alone. In Iron Man 2, we currently have information about one actor replacing another, a sentence about how a particular character draws upon two different Iron Man villains, an anecdote about an actor's performance, and a remark about who the film is dedicated to. We treat the Cast section from the real world perspective, and in the real world, the character "Jim Rhodes" is best-known as War Machine; backing up this assertion (and kicking it out of the realm of Original Research) is the fact that the director has repeatedly referred to the character as War Machine, in addition to all of the marketing materials that assert the character's name is War Machine. War Machine is in Iron Man 2, regardless of whether the name is given to him in dialogue or not, and we should be presenting information here from the real-world perspective. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The movie's official cast list is the ultimate arbiter of the character's name. Directors, screenwriters and producers all work very hard on even smaller details of a movie, and the names in the end-credit crawl is the end result of a long process. If I may go back to my previous example, which I only use since it's so clear, the Hulk TV-show producers didn't have arbitrary reasons to rename Bruce Banner as David Banner &mdash; it was a conscious, creative choice. We can't say, in essence, "Oh, the filmmakers are wrong, that's really War Machine whether they admit it or not." If the filmmakers had wanted to call him War Machine, they very, very easily could have. But they chose not to, for whatever creative reason, and the official cast list simply concretizes their choices. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's not the ultimate arbiter. No one ever claimed that. It's just the most appropriate starting point, and we can build it from there. We just don't have that many films with preexisting characters that have pseudonyms that are not uttered onscreen. Like EVula said, the director himself has identified the character as War Machine. That means we're not saying that the filmmakers are wrong. There's no reason to doubt that the character War Machine is in the film. We have all these promotional materials related to the film and all these print and web sources independent of the film mentioning the character as War Machine. You need to put forth a good reason to doubt this label that everyone else instills. For example, a debate over Two-Face's death in The Dark Knight is understandable because post-release coverage hinted either way. here, we don't have a debate. Who else could James Rhodes be playing? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cast lists are the ultimate arbiter because they're official, i.e, contractual. The director may have his say, but he's speaking colloquially and casually. The studio and the producers have the final decisions. Do you not think that if the filmmakers wanted to call him War Machine, they would have? There is some creative reason they did not. For us to substitute our judgment for theirs is not permissable. All we can go by is the manifest content of the film. Characters in many films adapted from books have their names changed. That doesn't mean it's permissible for us to say, "Oh, that's not his name, this is his name." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Those last two lines are important - when adaptations are made, changes are made. The cast list is based on those changes and may not reflect the original source.
 * As for the actor change and so on in the cast section... To be honest that material should move to "Production", it is part of what went into getting the film made. That includes casting issues, marketing, discussion of source material, differences or changes that were made, etc. The cast, at best, is the actors, the character names, and a nutshell of the character as presented in the film.
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Who knows why the pseudonym was not mentioned in the film? Maybe they did not want to associate too many names to multiple characters. Like EVula and I have said, there are numerous secondary sources (which Wikipedia depends on the most, not primary sources) that label the character this way. The character is verified to be known as War Machine from multiple reliable, published sources. The primary source should not be treated as gospel, as if it is the only one that matters, and it shouldn't. This is not one of these instances where the character seems to be this one from elsewhere but is actually someone else entirely. There is zero evidence of that; the only piece of evidence to "go against" this label is the fact that the words "War Machine" were not mentioned onscreen. Think about it, an outsider comes in, sees the argument that the character is called War Machine in promotional materials, in sources independent of the film, by the director, by the actor who plays him, and he sees the other argument, that the character isn't actually called War Machine in the film, and therefore we should keep out any suggestion that it could possibly be related to that one from the comic books with a very similar looking armored suit. I strongly recommend putting yourself in that person's shoes. I totally understand how there are strange nuances in such comic book films, but this is one instance that is quite straightforward. Anyway, TriiipleThreat, you've worked on comic book films and have notified others of this discussion. What is your take on this? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 01:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone here is making good points, and I can easily go along with whatever is decided. My main concern was establishing some kind consensus that can be used throughout Wikipedia as it will have wide reaching ripple effects. I do agree that including or not including a pseudonym is not a decision that film makers take lightly and that usage of pseudonyms in marketing materials is both easier and smart from a business standpoint. Also in many case, sources might not have any more insight on the pseudonym's usage than any of us but decide to use it anyway. If I had to pick a simple solution I would weakly support using the official credits and third party sources if no official listing is available.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * None of this speculation really matters. All we can do with movie plots is say exactly what the movie shows. Anything else we add is our own POV and original research. Where does it stop? Do we "correct" character names in all movies adapted from books? "Correct" locations that are different in the book? Clearly, no. Comic books are the same. If the movie doesn't call a character a certain name &mdash; when the filmmakers well can do so, but choose not to &mdash; we have to go by what the movie says. We don't correct the filmmakers choices simply because we don't agree with them. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Couple of points I think need hitting again:
 * Stopping at the character names used in the movie, the name of anything in the movie for that matter, is limited to sections dependent on the plot. Right now it looks like we are all agreed that "Plot" would not be the place to see "War Machine" or "Black Widow" used. It would be silly to extend that to sections that are not reliant on the plot. If the sources for the marketing, development, and production of the film are peppered with those, then it is reasonable to see them. If there is a section on the source material, it would almost be a requirement to see them.
 * The "Cast" section as it is used and can be used is a bit of a grey area. Here and in other articles it is being used as an extension of the "Production" section to deal with casting issues. I don't agree with that. The production of a film should follow the chronological development of the film, not be split and shuffled by the cast list order. What that leaves for the cast list is either the bare minimum of "Actor -- Role" or "Actor -- Role: Very short character sketch drawn from the film."
 * - J Greb (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Greb on this. No to inclusion in the plot unless flat out stated in the film ("a War Machine" would mean no inclusion, if they'd been more specific aobut it as a name then yes). Cast is fuzzier, partially because we frequently have different sorts of cast sections. When it's a "Casting" section (which is usually a subsection of production or development, though not always), then I'd be fine with it as long as there were reliable secondary sources making the connection. If it's one of our simple cast lists (typically titled "Cast" and simply actor/character/possibly brief description of character) then those are, in my mind anyway, typically more plot dependent. Therefore I don't like the idea of the information in those as much. One problem with this of course, is that sometimes we have a "Cast" section that actually has a fair amount of the info we would see in a "Casting" section (other actors considered, actor interpretation, etc.). Then I would be more inclined to go with my earlier thoughts re: casting section.

If "War Machine" is included in the credits, then including that name in the Cast list, with a forward-slash after "Rhodes", is reasonable. But if he's not called that in the film, then it should not be in the Synopsis. The Iron Man films are rather clever in how they introduce character's names, in that rather than the corny, bombastic self-declaration of characters, they use offhand comments. In the first film, Stane tries to dissuade Stark from deviating from their established work in weapons-making by telling him that they're "iron mongers". In the second film, when an armored Stark and Rhodes get into a fight, Stark mocks Rhodes and the military's desire to turn his armor into a "war machine". If the dialogue is included in the Synopsis, then that is a reasonable thing to wikilink to the War Machine article, but otherwise, it should not be shoehorned in there. The Synopsis is just a summary of the film's plot, nothing more. Nightscream (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like that idea for the plot; briefly mentioning the dialogue with the link. The second Nolan Batman kind of did something similar with TwoFace (although not as indirectly).  It wasn't a name he went by but something he was called. Millahnna (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the most stable way to make the inference is to use dialog from the movie. Using Spider-Man as a corollary, we can link to Doc Ock purely because he is called that in the movie. As opposed to The Lizard who never actually makes an appearance. Dr. Conner does turn into The Lizard in the comics but no such transformation is shown to take place in the movies. Can we simply push the director/producer aside and say "we know who this will be even if you don't want to admit it"? We could easily argue that by the time Eddie Brock had turned into Venom, The Lizard was well established so Dr. Conners must already be The Lizard (even if they don't show it). But that is Original Research, pure and simple. And assuming that any character will develop as an analog to their comic representation is just as much OR. To note what a character is called and provide a little more insight to their comic counterpart is one thing. Assuming we are more authoritative than the director is unsupportable. Padillah (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Padillah, Nightscream, J Greb, TriiipleThreat any anyone else above who is against original-research analysis/synthesis.


 * Moreover, this is settled territory, with consensus reached on this very issue virtually every time a Marvel movie comes out. It's a dead horse, and this continued consensus needs to be made part of WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines. It would save us all a lot of time and trouble to be able to point to it there instead of doing this a ... what is it? sixth time now? with the same results.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On the "link the phrase to the codename" (IIUC what was suggested)... there's a problem with that. "iron monger" and "war machine" each have distinct meanings aside from Marvel's characters. The same for "two-face". And each of those meanings is applicable in the scenes where the terms are used. It's an editor based inference to link them to the comic book characters. And even if there is a verifiable source that they are a wink and a nudge to the comics, that is more in line for the a section dealing with the writing or treatment of the source material, not the plot. - J Greb (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the fact that Millahna referred to The Dark Knight as "the second Nolan Batman", many consensuses (consensi?) have been taken on the issue, and it seems to always result in a "not in the movie, not in the article" conclusion. --Boycool (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then why are we linking to War Machine so directly? If we're in denial that James Rhodes is War Machine in the film, we ought to move the wiki-link outside of the "Don Cheadle as Lt. Colonel James 'Rhodey' Rhodes" passage. And I see consensus not to mention War Machine in the plot summary, but I'm not seeing a strong enough one for the cast section. Nightscream makes a good point about a cast list vs. casting prose. If we were to write prose, we could write "he is not explicitly identified as War Machine in the film" or something along these lines. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 03:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Then why are we linking..." Are you seriously asking that or is it for effect?
 * As for "Cast" and "Casting" - It would be better to separate the two.
 * - J Greb (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The loaded phrase "If we're in denial that James Rhodes is War Machine in the film," is an extraordinary thing to say and one that betrays a non-neutral bias. No one is "in denial" of anything just because they disagree with someone. And in this case, the filmmakers made a conscious decision that this character is not called War Machine, just as the Hulk TV-show producers made a conscious decision that its character is not called Bruce Banner. Those editors who report the concrete fact the the character is "David Banner" are not "in denial" that it's Bruce Banner. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * J Greb, there is an implicit acknowledgement that James Rhodes is War Machine by linking to the War Machine article. The link should be separated from the official character identity. For example, "Don Cheadle as Lt. Colonel James 'Rhodey' Rhodes: Cheadle's character is based on War Machine from the comics, though he is not called 'War Machine' in the film." We can reference the based-on-comics bit with the appropriate reference, and we can reference the film itself for the not-called-War-Machine bit. We should not be linking so directly to the best possible link if that link is not representative of what the film shows. Look at War Machine in other media, it looks like this is somewhat done already. It's just a matter of dissociating the differently-named comic book character from the film character. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. After thinking about this some more and reading the additional comments since I drew a blank on the title The Dark Knight (my "Second Nolan Batman" comment) I think it probably is simpler if we stick to what we've done in the past, at least in the plot and cast (not in film = not linked). However, I do think there's merit in considering the concept of referencing the names in production and development sections if the characters are referred to in reliable sources. So if a report on, say. costuming references the character as War Machine, I don't see why we couldn't quote said source and include the link there. If the films ultimately decide to go way off-canon in some way that makes thinking of the character as being likely to become War Machine in the future, we can always update the article to note "early reports assumed the character would be but... blah blah blah". In fact we'd have to, I would think. I finally got some sleep but I still feel like I'm not explaining my thoughts well. Millahnna (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually that is a fairly good explanation, and maybe a step or two beyond what I thought I was stating.
 * There is a level of sense in not linking character names in "Plot" and in most cases "Cast (list)" unless there is an article on that specific character. With comic book films, that would mean a stand alone article on the version of the character in the film or a well developed and focused article section that is not just a plot dump. And Erik brought up one of the cases where linking to the source character works in a cast list - "The character is based on/adapted from Foo (character) from the comics,
 * Linking to the general character article(s) in the remainder of the article should happen at the earliest point there is context for it. Be it "Casting", "Development" (which should mention what the film is based on), "Marketing" or whatever.
 * And Erik, if your still watching the, the umbrage I took at you question is 1) that you seemed to take "not in 'Plot' or 'Cast (list)'" as "not at all" and 2) it forces spelling out the idea of linking with context, something that should be obvious and common sense editing. War Machine and Iron Man provide nil information when link in the context of the plot or a character list. Nothing relevant to the plot of the film or the background of the character withing the context of the film. When the context of the link "based on", then it makes sense - the article raises a topic that the reader may want more info on.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds as if we're close to reaching a consensus (through this and many past discussions that ended the same way) that we can then add to WikiProject Comics guidelines so that we don't have to go through this every single movie. Yay!


 * One caution about character names: A lot of the press is not in-depth savvy about comics, and so you'll see photo captions about "first pictures of Nolan's Catwoman!" even though neither Nolan or the studio may (yet) have called her that. It's important that we give most weight to the originating source of a fact, and not to popular-press misinterpretaion. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Tene and Geb, just save it. It's not fair that you two, being admins, can sit on your asses and treat this article like a dictatorship. This is exactly why Wikipedia is never taken seriously and exactly why I will never support Wikipedia through donations as long as bullshit like this continues to go on and no one higher up steps in. And don't bother wasting my time with policy because I know what the policy is and I can read perfectly fine.Kelzorro (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kelzorro, you are completely out of line. There are several editors on here that are not admins and yet agree with Tenebrae and J Greb. And don't even for a moment think that I agree because they are admins and I'm scared of them. I have WAY too much clout on this project and WAY too much knowledge of policy to be scared of a couple of "power-hungry admins" if that is what they are. Check my history and you'll see, I've gone after admins when I thought they were wrong and I'll do it again... if I think they are wrong. In this case, they are not. Using the given film as a basis it's simple to introduce the complexities of attributing character names without validation. Say you think Vanko is Dynamo, so you link it. Well, I can see you are wrong so I revert your link and I link to Whiplash. Well, this could go on for days. Edit wars. Blocks. Bans. it's not hard to see why we need to rest the article on the movie. Without that, we are simply writing what we think we know. Padillah (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Padillah, a veteran editor who knows we can't use personal knowledge as a basis for claims — and anything outside the manifest content of the movie itself calls for conclusions based on personal knowledge. If you are an audience member who doesn't know comic books, and only knows the characters from the movie, then Rhodes is simply Rhodes. That's all the movie says. I'm sure many of us have seen movies based on books, and likewise, in the movie adaptation, the movie character is only the movie character, even if, as often happens, that character may have a different name than in the book.


 * Incidentally, I'm not sure where the misconception arose, but I have never claimed nor ever even implied I was an admin. I guess I should be flattered that my peers find me (for the most part; I know not always) acting in a reasoned and knowledgeable manner. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't care if I am out of line, but I do apologize for the misconception, Tenebrae. But my bluntess against JG remains simply because I do not like admins who sit here and act like a dictator on an article flat out cutting out edits despite overwhelming evidence from the studios, Marvel, directors, actors, and so on. CREDIBILITY is credibility and I am sure they know more about the film series than a bunch of high strong editors will. People are not stupid, and I feel Wikipedia is insulting the readers intelligence by not including said info since it does tie into the movie and the Marvel cinematic series. Like I said before, how can JGreb determines what's suitable and not, and I've looked at the edit history, some of them were really good edits. Like I said, I don't care. After the incident with another editor despite me providing a legitimate source from the owners of a series and the main characters, I still got blocked while he didn't, so I no longer bother with this site and its whip cracking policies. An edit or to to correct spelling or grammar, yeah, but anything else, Wikipedia can just forget. Kelzorro (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration. I really do. I've been reading comics literally longer than most of the editors here have been alive. I recognize that character as based on War Machine, obviously. But there's a bigger picture we have to look at: If we start including claims based on, essentially, personal knowledge, that undermines the whole foundation of Wikipedia, since different people's personal knowledge can be different and at odds. One case where something seems obvious can't change the danger of undermining that foundation, since 99% of such "obvious" things really aren't, and people disagree. Where do we say, "Oh, it's OK here to use personal knowledge."


 * If the "studios, Marvel, directors, actors" are claiming it's War Machine, then a big question arises (aside from the fact that the studio, which has the final word, actually didn't say it, judging from the studio-approved final cut and the studio-approved official credits): If the filmmakers really wanted to call him War Machine, why didn't they? In all seriousness, ask yourself: They could have. Easily. Why didn't they? That's at the heart of it, isn't it? That's the essential question. It's worth asking: Why do you think they didn't? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Random edit break
Tenebrae, I don't know that the "why" of it has an impact in Wikipedia. There are several things that are not directly referred to by their creators but are regarded as such by other that came after. So long as there is secondary sources we have no issue either noting it outright or mentioning it as a view held by "some". Why are we not doing that here? Where is the statement that equivocates the directors and others points of view? Why is it allowable in every other article and with every other factoid to cite secondary evidence that lay claims on primary sources but with character names this policy is suspended? Why is the boundary of evidence so high in this case? What would we need to do to overcome it? Is there a notation we can make? Is there a phrasing we can use? Someone above suggested placing the directors comments in the body of the article thus establishing that the director claimed the character identity even if the film didn't (for solely artistic reasons, by the way). What happened to finding a way to fit appropriately sourced secondary comments into the article body? Padillah (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting separate issue you bring up. First, though, we need to say that there are well over a million articles on Wikipedia, as I understand it, and many of them are not going to be up to standard or follow policy / guidelines properly, so it's pretty well understood on Wikipedia that we don't say, "Well, another article does that so why can't we?"


 * The plot and the character portions of a film article, for reasons detailed ad infinitum in this thread, can only be based on the actual content of the movie. That's what the article is about &mdash; just the movie, and nothing else, same as we can't say with a book adaptation, "Oh, they call that character David, but he's really Bruce, no matter what the movie calls him."


 * Now, I believe I've seen movie articles with sections like "Differences between movie and book," and that's a whole 'nother thing. If you're proposing a section like that, personally, I don't see why we can't discuss it. The question of notability comes in &mdash; we've Wikilinked Rhodes to War Machine, so anybody interested in the character can learn more that way without violating the integrity of the movie content. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that while WP:OTHERSTUFF may be an unpopular argument it is still the basis for forming consensus. If nobody paid attention to anybody else we'd never find any way to agree. While I'm not advocating for the use of invalid examples there are articles that do conflate and compare two disparate sources of the same narrative. We can take a page from their book and make all these comic -based movie pages better in the process. In case you haven't noticed Marvel isn't going to stop and this won't get any easier. I'm simply suggesting it would serve us best to acknowledge the phenomenon and adjust rather than stick our head in the sand and yell "OR!" at the top of our voice.
 * That being said, I can understand that the list of characters might be the less desirable place to make these notes. However, we must also remember that we are not replicating an "official" site and there is no reason our definition of "Cast" can't be expanded should that prove to be useful to solve this. I am not suggesting that we gut the current article, rather leave open the possibility that this can be solved.
 * I don't know if what I'm suggesting is the same as the "Differences" sections seen elsewhere. Those are, unfortunately, mostly used the sneak in trivia and fancruft and are almost never cited. Also, they are comparing one to the other, and this requires translation from one to the other which is generally left to OR. How can we compare the War Machine in the comics to the War Machine of the movie if we can't agree that the character in the movie is called War Machine in the first place? I'm better at logistics than I am at copyedit, what would you suggest we do to introduce secondary sources that make statements about the character identities in the film? Do the film credits of Spider-Man actually list the Green Goblin? Or is that just a name he is given in the film? Would it help if the main article was Jim Rhodes rather than War Machine? Then we could link like they do Norman Osborne and the article would explain how they relate. Padillah (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a few thoughts...
 * A casting section, or development one, is more than likely to wind up with "War Machine" in it since the sources used for that are going to have statements involving "We to Marvel's War Machine and..." or the like. This is part and parcel of using the sources.
 * A comparison section isn't a bad idea. Writing it without secondary sources is. And this isn't a case of sticking our collective heads in the sand and yelling OR. You, I, another editor, or a group of editors comparing the two primary sources and writing a section is OR.
 * You are right, OSE is a way of showing a working consensus, and ideally when found it should be reviewed on whether it is and if if it is breaking more general ones. If it is compatable and actually consensus, it should be codified some where. But if it's used to justify bad practices it becomes a case of "Thanks for pointing out other problems."
 * As I pointed out above, I don't think linking to the character articles in the plot or case is a good idea. Ideally the link should be adding contextually relevant content. War Machine, since it is focused solely on the comic bocck character and mostly consists of an in story history of the character, isn't relevant to the plot of the film or the character in the film. It is contextually relevant when the article moves on to discuss the source material that was adapted in to the film.
 * - J Greb (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry this took so long. RL.
 * I understand how a "Casting" section would play out, I'm more concerned with establishing a section of comic movie articles that directly addresses the issue of what character is who in the movie. The demand is obviously there as witnessed by the numerous and belligerent edits made over the years to the various movie articles.
 * Inasmuch as the section would remain cited I agree with a "Differences" section. I do believe you got some signals crossed on my attitude towards OR. I was trying to suggest that it would be more work than it's worth to simply deny everyone that tries to edit a movie article by telling them that adding what character plays who in the comic book is OR. You are not going to make the comic fans go away by citing policy. We should accept that this is going to happen and find an appropriate way of addressing it.
 * I was using OSE to point out that there are many articles that would be helped by establising a process to deal with these kinds of conflicts. Rather than dismissing them as OSE, we should be paying attention to what the reading public expects from the articles.
 * I know the point of view of the War Machine article. I have read it. I was postulating that it might help to have articles written from a certain point of view that would facilitate linking. If the War Machine article were, instead, an article about James Rhodes it would be much easier to link to from this article.
 * Padillah (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Without referencing anything else in Padillah's reasoned and thought-out points above, I'd like to offer that "You are not going to make the comic fans go away by citing policy. We should accept that this is going to happen and find an appropriate way of addressing it" seems defeatist to me, and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. In order for it to attain and then retain credibility as an encyclopedia, we need to make clear that comics articles (and pop-music articles, and toy articles, etc.) are not fan pages. The big picture is that little by little we educate and elevate contributors into understanding and abiding by policy &mdash; a word that simply means majority consensus worked out over time and experience.


 * The danger of OR and of "everybody knows this; it's obvious" is that most things are only "known" and "obvious" to one particular individual and not to another. Can you imagine articles on political figures or history that relied on what one right-wing editor believes is obvious or what one left-wing editor believes is obvious? As for what readers expect: There, too, one editor believes one thing, and another believes another. I, to give an example, believe readers expect to read a film plot and be able to trust that it gives only what the film says, and doesn't extrapolate. I'm not saying this in any disrespectful way &mdash; the plain words, without vocal inflection, may not quite convey that. I'm just asking that we consider that we're all operating, myself included, from blinkered perspectives, and generalizations that I may believe can be different from what someone else believes.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair points, all. I don't mean to appear defeatist and I don't mean to try and support OR. I am advocating that we understand our audience and try to come up with a standard that fits Wikipedia policy and still delivers content to our readers. So the question becomes: Does the fact that some continue to demand this information from the article mean they have a stilted view of what the article (and, by extension, Wikipedia) is? Or does the fact that we are withholding it mean we are limiting the article in an effort to remain aloof when, in reality, all we are doing is withholding information the general public is looking for? Is Wikipedia right or are the readers right? Padillah (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is, those two aren't the only choices; that's what's called "a false dichotomy." The larger point is that who among us can say definitively, "This is what the readers want"? I couldn't say that; you couldn't say that. We'd only be guessing, based on our perspective and opinion. You're right, of course, in that some readers do want highly detailed, fan-oriented content. I would venture to say the vast majority of Wikipedia readers, however, do not. Some evidence for this, for example, is the existence of template tags that caution against overdetailed plots, and articles that contain "an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience." One thing I'm pretty sure of is that Wikipedia is geared to the general public overall. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Iron Man 3
Considering the size of the sequel section of the article and that it's a year away from release, perhaps it's time to create an article for Iron Man 3 and move much of the content there, while leaving a smaller stump in Iron Man 2? Richiekim (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bravery Medals?!?
I make it my business to be able to identify medals of many nations from a glance and I know in the movie they mention "Bravery Medals" but I feel I should point out that Stark got the Distinguished Service Medal and Rhodes the Meritorious Service Medal. I think this maybe worth mentioning? Nford24 (Talk) 09:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR and WP:RS. In short, until there's a published, non-self-published, third-party source saying it's the DSM and MSM, we can't say it is.  (Particularly since the Army DSM can't be awarded to civilians like Stark...) rdfox 76 (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Correction Needed
The "six months later" note at the top of the plot summary is incorrect, unless the novelization or other materials specifically state this as the timeframe. A more appropriate wording would be "several months later", because as Vanko builds his arc reactor in the opening scenes, magazines and newspaper clippings of Iron Man are shown over his wall, including one noting Iron Man has stabalized West-East relations (obviously did not happen in the first film), and the "six months later" caption appears at the end of the scene. This implies at least some time passes between the end of the first film and the end of the opening of the second film, in order for Iron Man to be receiving this type of press coverage. Thus, the six months note is not necessarily true, unless as I said, the novelization or other official materials make the same timeframe reference. 70.50.130.138 (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2012
Under Cast Mickey Rourke played as Anton Vanko not Ivan because Ivan is Anton's father

75.191.255.198 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in yet another move guaranteed to illicit outcrys from the cognoscenti, the credits list Rourke's role as "Ivan". And since this article is about the movie, not the character, we have to abide by the credits. Padillah (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2012

 * Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko / Whiplash

110.142.150.174 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. :) Ha  dg  er  23:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverted as per discussion including at, where admin J Greb at 21:14 May 9, 2010, sums up the consensus, with Padillah (above) concurring immediately afterward at that post. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Improving this article
I noticed that of the MCU film articles, this one has the lowest rating, being rated C-Class. The others are all Good Articles (except Avengers which is B-Class, but is still actively being worked on). Looking through the article, I can see a number of reasons why: Anyway this is mostly a notice that I'm going to attempt to improve the article's layout and content, and any help and input from other editors would be appreciated. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead section is really bare, with almost nothing of substance provided to the reader.
 * 2) The cast section is essentially a list. I understand that people wanted to keep some of the production notes (so-and-so replaced so-and-so, contract disputes, etc) in the production section, but some quotes from the actors on playing the roles would help provide context to the reader and keep the section useful.
 * 3) The production section contains only a few surface level bits of info and is not remotely detailed. Only the "Casting" portion of this section seems thorough and, as noted above, only about half of that info belongs there, the other half would make more sense in the Cast section.
 * 4) In particular the article needs more information on the filming and post-production periods.


 * The main cast and filming sections are, you're right, way too bare. They need work, absolutely.


 * Not sure I'm seeing what's wrong with the lead. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I already rewrote the lead to be more substantive. The entire second paragraph is new. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And you clearly did a great job!  : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's sort of sad to see all the good articles on the MCU and then I notice this article and wonder where is the sort of people that make these articles great. I think all of us MCU colleagues might need to help out with this article if we can. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I've expanded the lead, cast, and a large portion of the production section (obviously not "Post-production" yet, haha). If other editors could look over everything and double-check that those portions are clear, well-organized and aren't missing any obvious bits of info that would be helpful. I'll keep gathering sources for the visual effects companies that were hired and info on reshoots for that post-production section. I also think that's where the info on Olivia Munn's role belongs, as that change took place during post. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * WIll love to look over when I get time ... you're doing wonderful work! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Hopefully I can get it up to Good Article Status. Anyway, I did have a question: if I took this animated image (http://www.awn.com/articles/article/vfx-oscar-bakeoff-2011-staying-alive/page/3%2C1) and made it into one flat image with the pre- portion atop the post- portion, could I still source it as a production still? ILM released it on their site as part of their Oscar campaign. Thanks. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that I just need to add some info about the reshoots (gathering sources now) and then the article will be mostly well organized and clean, and I'll look into getting it a new rating. Any editors have any other suggestions for improvements/info that's missing? -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've only seen the film once so I don't remember but this line: "Russian television shows Stark Industries CEO Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) revealing his identity as Iron Man to the world. Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), whose father, Anton Vanko (Yevgeni Lazarev), has just died, sees this and begins building a similar weapon." What weapon? The Iron Man? It isn't established it is a weapon in the plot there and my memory is of him building an arc reactor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, I went ahead and changed the wording. Should be better. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd sentence
In the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lede: "In July of that same same year Theroux, who had written Tropic Thunder, a film for which Downey was nominated for an Academy Award, was hired to write the script." Seems a little irrelevant. Or at least overly-detailed for the lede. --Boycool † (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Another odd sentence and other comments
Hi

I don't know if you had a peer review on this, but rather than start a GA review page to comment:


 * Box office
 * "Iron Man 2 launched internationally with number-one openings on Wednesday, April 28, 2010, in six European markets for a total $2.2 million from 960 venues." - unclear as to what refers to what; did it launch internationally in six European markets only? if so, is that an international opening? was the $2.2 million from the six European only or was that a global total? where were the number-one openings, was it no1 in all the six European countries, or in other countries that were part of the international opening?
 * "53 foreign markets" & "IMAX theaters overseas" - foreign to who? overseas from where? I suspect that non-domestic is better, but still conveys a sense of "us and them" so perhaps the "international" used in the previous sentence is better?
 * "weekend in United States" - I suspect it should be " weekend in the United States"
 * "It grossed $312,433,331 in North America as well as $311,500,000 internationally [...] worldwide total of $623,933,331." - not accurate. The international total was 626, global and international is the same thing. Non-domestic total was 311.
 * "in North America" what countries does this include? According to the Wiki page for North America it comprises 23 countries.

In general there is a poorly used terminology using "international" to mean "non-domestic" (or in its extreme sense "foreign") International means more than one coutry, or all countries, including the USA; non-domestic means all countries apart from the USA. An international release could be America and Canada.

There also seems to be a missing entry in the info box for the non-domestic release, which according to this was prior to the US release. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes there were a few peer reviews, but I guess the box office section was overlooked.


 * As to your points, I reworded the initial sentence to clarify. In box office terms, "domestic" box office refers to gross in the US and Canada and "foreign"/overseas box office refers to gross in all other countries/markets. As for the infobox, it includes the dates of the worldwide premiere (which occurred in Los Angeles), and the date of public release in the production country, in this case the United States. That is protocol according to the film infobox guidelines.


 * Thanks -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Apart from a rewording this does nothing to address my points.
 * The statements:
 * "In box office terms, 'domestic' box office refers to gross in the US and Canada" and "'foreign'/overseas box office refers to gross in all other countries/markets"
 * are nothing but baloney. "In box office terms" - that means nothing, there is no such thing as "box office terms", there are just domestic, international and non-domestic. It seems that you do not understand how this works.
 * Domestic = the countr(y/ies) that made the film (It is definitely not just the US and Canada)
 * Non-domestic = all other countries that are not the domestic ones
 * International means all countries that participated in whatever the sentence is referred to. For example
 * "The international release was on April 1, 2012."
 * This could be a release of a US film that was first released on the same day in the US, UK, Canada, India and Bolivia.
 * Similarly the sentence could also refer to a release prior to a domestic release.
 * "The international release was on April 1, 2012; while the domestic release was on April 12, 2012 to avoid ..."
 * I suggest you try to understand what these terms refer to, especially as this is for a GA Chaosdruid (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Box office reporting for American produced films is a business. Usually the numbers come from companies such as Rentrak. The numbers are reported with the labels "domestic" (which refers to grosses in the United States and Canada) or "foreign"/"overseas" (which refer to grosses from all other nations/territories, even though there are not always actually seas separating the countries). I understand what the terms mean in a general sense, but they also have a specific meaning in the context of box office returns for an American film and the numbers that are provided/available. We can only do so much in terms of relaying the information, as only so much information is typically available. So no, it's not baloney, and yes, I understand what the terms mean. We are referring to a specific usage of the terms, I thought that was clear. The article is about an American film, the terminology generally gains its context accordingly.
 * Regardless, I believe I already rewrote the box office section to address your concerns with the terminology provided. So unless you have other specific issues with the phrasing in the article, which I would be happy to clean up, I'm not really sure what the issue is. Thanks. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur with Fandraltastic. Established industry terms, standard useage. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And unfortunately we have to convert that locally specific info into an international encyclopaedia. The labels are still only specific for the USA, and we have to remember that your statement "have a specific meaning in the context of box office returns for an American film" only applies when viewed from the point of the USA. We do not use the labels as theses companies do because this is not the US Wikipedia.
 * We are referring to a specific usage of the terms - where they are used in an international encyclopaedia. Take someone reading from Australia; their domestic box office is Australia.
 * While it is true that the majority of films are produced in the US, it does not mean that we have to follow an American labelling.
 * I thank you for making changes, please remember that this is a candidate for GA - things like this cannot be brushed under the carpet with "well that's how we refer to them in the USA".
 * @Tenebrae - no, that is an established US industry term and is certainly not standard usage. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on January 30, 2013
Don Cheadle's quote has a type-o.

"And the common denominator was really his friendship..."

Denominator should be dominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.36.104.46 (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

'...third installment of the Iron Man trilogy...'
Request rephrase; is it a trilogy? It's not like we see there to be a single through line (maybe there will be, but at the moment it looks all but unconnected to the events of Iron Man 2), it's not a complete story with the three films (given that The Avengers comes in between 2 and 3), and there's no guarantee there won't be a fourth Iron Man film (Robert Downey Jr has said that he'd be happy to keep alternating between production of Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes films for a long time). 'Third installment in the trilogy' suggests a final piece of a saga laid out in the first two films and culminating with this one (á la the Dark Knight trilogy, or the Matrix trilogy). Instead, Iron Man 3 will be the third installment in the Iron Man 'film series' or 'franchise', which at present has three entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.180.110 (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Jarvis
There is an ongoing discussion at the Edwin Jarvis talk page regarding the way we refer to Tony Stark's computer system. Could I please ask for your views on the matter? Thanks. drewmunn talk 10:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Rourke's comments on the movie
I'm re-watching this movie and reading the article and Rourke's criticisms of it and comments on it are not mentioned here. Maybe they're borderline noteworthy but in the cast section it says he didn't want to make the character one-dimensional implying he gave the character a multi dimensonal personality. But that was from before he saw the cuts the studio made: http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/155866/iron-man-2-star-mickey-rourke-really-hates-marvel AaronY (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you add some quotes? If other users have issues, they make their edits. But I think you could totally add some of that to Rourke's character paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Critical success?
I think saying that the film was a critical success in the lead is a bit misleading and inaccurate. These two sources [ both state that the film received mixed reviews. The first source seems reliable, but I am not completely sure about the reliability of the second one. Any thoughts? [[User:JaciFan|JaciFan]] (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The film received generally mixed-positive reviews and is fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which counts as a critical success. It clearly isn't a critically acclaimed film, but I don't think our wording implies that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then again, Thor: The Dark World also received a similar reception to Iron Man 2 (generally mixed-positive reviews) and is also fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, yet the lead in its article states that it received mixed reviews. Would Thor 2 then be regarded as a critical success? Also, the articles of Marvel's better received films, like Iron Man, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Captain America: Civil War, all state in their leads that they were critical successes. So wouldn't saying that Iron Man 2 is a critical success sound a bit misleading in light of all this? Now I'm not saying that we should change "critical success" to "mixed reviews" in the lead, because I now see how one could argue against that, given that the film's reviews were leaning to the positive side and how it is certified fresh on RT. However, I do think we should definitely change "critical success" to, perhaps, something like "generally positive reviews", as was stated above by adamstom97 earlier. Any thoughts? JaciFan (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is unnecessary and you are comparing apples to oranges, but I wouldn't object to "received generally positive reviews and was a box office success". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good. JaciFan (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)