Talk:Thor: Ragnarok/Archive 2

"Battle of Sokovia"?
How do people feel about cutting the footnote and replacing the main body text with "Two years after the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron"? I'm gonna rewatch the film this weekend, but I don't think "the Battle of Sokovia" was mentioned either here or in any other film; it's actually somewhat counterintuitive, since events called "the Battle of [city/state name]" in the real world tend to take place between opposing armies, not between less than a dozen heroes and a robot. (The "Battle of New York" doesn't have this problem, which is why I think it's worth bringing up here but not in the Iron Man 3 article, even if that one has worse chronology problems as it explicitly sets The Avengers in June.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Battle of Sokovia" was definitely mentioned. Also, this is a work of fiction, not the real world. It can be called whatever it likes in the fictional universe, and referencing the fight between the Avengers and Ultron is called the Battle of Sokovia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I know: that's why I don't have any problem with the nonsense naming in Game of Thrones ("Battle of the Bastards"!? Neither Littlefinger nor Sweetrobin nor Royce are bastards!); the problem is that when a nonsense fictional name is not used prominently within the fictional work itself (a complaint that can't be leveled at Game of Thrones but probably could here), our readers are not as likely to recognize it and more likely to blame us. That's the only reason I wrote everything after the semicolon. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also better to not add things to the plot summary that are not actually part of the plot, like any mention of Age of Ultron. That is why we have gone for the footnote. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the discussion where that consensus was reached? It clearly was not on this talk page (as we do the same in a bunch of much older articles and apparently have for years), and if you are going to invoke a prior discussion like that it would be helpful to link it. Personally I would have likely opposed the proposal that led to the current status quo: mentioning in the first sentence the time lapse or the like between "the events depicted in Film X" would not hurt the plot summary as much as using relatively obscure in-universe terminology and attaching a footnote that really stands out the way these plot summaries are currently written (i.e., without inline citations) from where I am standing, and I think perhaps it might be worth reopening that discussion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:FILMPLOT and WP:COMMONSENSE. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in either of those about footnotes or proscribing use of real-world reference points like naming a prequel inline as opposed to using in-universe terminology. In fact, citation of COMMONSENSE in addition to a "rule" (which mostly exists to offer descriptive advice, but it's still an authoritative guideline) like FILMPLOT is really weird -- why would you use common sense to ignore a rule while at the same time following said rule? (Or do you mean that since FILMPLOT doesn't say anything about using in-universe terminology and footnotes, we are here using COMMONSENSE to ignore that fact and do so anyway? That doesn't strike me as COMMONSENSE at all.)
 * Anyway, I meant to ask if you could link me to the specific discussion you alluded where "we [went] for the footnote[s]" in this and related articles -- are you saying that that discussion never happened and it was just collective osmosis? I want to know who is "we", and how you got from the two WP: namespace pages you link to where this article's plot summary is.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an evolution from an easter egg link, such as wikilinking Battle of Sokovia to Age of Ultron, to mentioning it in text, such as the Battle of Sokovia as depicted in Age of Ultron, which some people didn't like, to the final form of a footnote. DonQuixote (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is something that has happended over dozens of articles likely involving multiple discussion on talk pages and in edit summaries, with many different editors involved. By "we", I mean the collective we and not anybody in particular. And I linked to FILMPLOT because it explains how we are supposed to come up with plot summaries (it doesn't involve adding information that isn't part of the plot, by the way) and the COMMONSENSE because there was a lot of that put into figuring out the footnote solution: many people were rightly not interested in including information from outside of the plot, and wanted an alternative solution. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense, and the current status quo is definitely better than an easter egg link, but I personally would not have been among the some people (was it "most people"?) who wouldn't like the Battle of Sokovia as depicted in Age of Ultron. And I wonder if simply naming the film inline without the in-universe reference (the events of Age of Ultron; no "Battle of Sokovia" at all) was considered? I'd still like a link to a discussion (any one of the many) where some people didn't like naming the film in the text, mind you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't much of a discussion but rather an edit history thing. Not many people were bothered that the inline mention got turned into a footnote. If you want to start a discussion on inline vs footnote, go ahead. DonQuixote (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Home media leak
Worth mentioning? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Judging from the sources at this time and date, a sentence or two seems appropriate. If there's more fallout that is covered, we can expand accordingly. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The only issue I seem to have with including it, is it seems to be circumstantial based on a Reddit user's experience. It doesn't seem like The Verge (or TorrentFreak which the Verge h/t) independently confirmed this leak was true based on the Reddit user's description. I'll see if any other reliable sources reporting on this were able to confirm the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Tessa Thompson's character
The movie never actually calls her "Valkyrie," just one of the Valkyior, and in dialog she's Scrapper 142. But according to the official credits at Talk:Thor:_Ragnarok/Archive_1, she's Valkyrie. What do we do? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We should call her Scrapper 142 per dialogue in the plot section, although after the first instance the familiar 142 is enough. I also made Scrapper 142 more predominant in the Cast section for easy reference.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Postcolonial themes?
Anyone feel like an encyclopedic discussion of the film is sorely lacking without at least a mention of this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There may be merit to such a discussion, particularly given Waititi's [recent comments about race relations in New Zealand, but that video doesn't seem like it is all that notable a source plus it doesn't give any explanation, elaboration, or general discussion on how the movie contains the themes that it does. Have you come across some better sources that discuss the issue? - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Chipman is the resident film critic at Geek.com and a featured columnist on ScreenRant, so "notability" is probably not the issue. A 15-second satyric rant within a single entry in a worst-to-best ranking of an arbitrary selection of "MCU" properties is not a great source for expanding the article, though. A quick googling of "Thor colonialism" brought up a bunch of other apparently more in-depth sources, but I admit I haven't read them yet. The Waititi interview is interesting, but seems to be about an only loosely-related issue; also, I'm a little more concerned with critical analysis of the film than first-party statement of intent, since at present the development section of this article appears to be already much more in-depth than the critical reception section. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to put together a proposed paragraph or section maybe that would help everyone see what it could look like in the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2018

 * 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 close.''' Absolutely no evidence given. Completely incorrect per sources. And just plain silly. (non-admin closure) oknazevad (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thor: Ragnarok → Thor Ragnarok – I don't think using a colon is necessary. The title without a colon makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c0:4380:e901:8c68:9a4f:f8f4:cb8e (talk • contribs)
 * Strong oppose and speedy close. It's called Thor: Ragnarok by every source I have seen including the official sites and the first 30 Google results on . All subtitled films in Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe films have a colon before the subtitle like the official name. We don't invent titles just because a user thinks they make more sense than the real title. The official poster omits the colon but that's because "Thor" and "Ragnarok" are on separate lines, and they also have different styling. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2018 (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.

Abbreviate
Abbreviations should be avoided but if you're going to abbreviate it makes sense to keep it short. Many articles with tables use the abbreviation "Ref." and I changed this article to do the same. I'm surprised anyone disagreed with the change and I'm even more surprised by the edit summary:

(Reverted good faith edits by 109.78.247.142 (talk): "Ref(s)" is not the same as "References". If you need help understanding this, take it the talk page. (TW))

I do not know what this editor means, or why he is assuming his point of view is obvious. I see no reason not to keep an abbreviation short and I see no need for excessive use of parentheses. Please do explain what you mean. -- 109.78.244.178 (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Description of final battle is chronologically confused
If I recall correctly, Hulk doesn't "defeat" Fenris, and Loki and the gladiators don't arrive, until after Thor loses his eye, but we imply they are both before. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Fenris falls off the waterfall on the edge of planet as direct result of his fight with Hulk, so yeah. As for the chronology, I don’t how much changing it may effect the plot summary but keep in mind per WP:FILMPLOT: “events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen.”—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fenris falls off the waterfall on the edge of planet as direct result of his fight with Hulk, so yeah. Watch the film more closely. The battle is silent beneath the song, but Fenris is hardly "defeated" upon falling off the bridge. As for the chronology, I don’t how much changing it may effect the plot summary but keep in mind per WP:FILMPLOT: “events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen.” That would appear to refer to moving details around to be more chronologically accurate (lots of films have scenes shown out of order), not to what we are doing here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on closer examination still the battle between 142/Thor and Hela is only a few seconds (1:52:36-1:53:00, and then a couple more brief shots), and is meant to distract Hela while Loki resurrects Surtur and Heimdal leads the civilians offworld. Valkyrie's role in the fight with Hela at this point is not an important plot detail so much as a badass character turn. This is all several minutes after Hulk and Fenris fight underwater and Fenris falls off a waterfall while Hulk clings to a rock. This is completely different from how we currently portray it: Banner chooses to become Hulk again, defeating Fenris, while Thor and 142 battle Hela and her warriors. In fact Banner chooses to become Hulk again doesn't make any sense the way it's written: we don't mention Hulk turning back into Banner, let alone Banner's fear that turning into the Hulk again would mean never being able to turn back into himself. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson
I object to the addition of Scarlett Johansson to the. Cast section, as it’s not new footage shot for the film, rather archival from Avengers: Age of Ultron. It’s the equivalent of saying Hayley Atwell was in Captain America: Civil War as a still picture of her appeared. If there was any alteration to the footage ala Natalie Portman recording new voiceover for archive deleted footage for Avengers: Endgame, sure, but I don’t feel this qualifies and shouldn’t be included in the cast section. Perhaps in the production section. Rusted AutoParts 22:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a still photograph and archive footage.. both in terms of compensation paid to the performer and the way it's treated in the film... but... did Scarlett get credited for her work on this film like Portman did for Avengers? Spanneraol (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Portman actually did some voice-over work for Endgame. Regardless, Johansson appears in the film through archival footage, it's not a still photograph but a video in the Quinjet, and its appearance is even mentioned in the Plot section. It's seems worth mentioning to me. El Millo (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Johannson was not credited.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I said the information about Johansson’s archival footage could be better suited for the production section. Rusted AutoParts  23:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would feel out of place in the Production section. El Millo (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then it should be outright excluded. It wasn’t an official appearance by Johansson so to include her in the Cast section is incorrect. Rusted AutoParts  00:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? It is sourced that she appeared in the film, it is mentioned in the Plot section. How is it not official? You can see her face, you can hear her voice, and her appearance is somewhat relevant to the plot. We should keep it. El Millo (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s just the same footage we saw in AOU. Johansson did no time on the film and is not credited. It’s fine to indicate that the recording of Romanoff was used to calm Hulk down but to include her in the cast section is in my opinion misleading, because it’s just recycled footage, and not new scenes she shot. Rusted AutoParts  00:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But we are saying that it is "through archival footage from Age of Ultron", that clearly means that she didn't shoot any new scenes. If we didn't make that clear, then it would be misleading. El Millo (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Her presence in the cast still doesn’t fit as it’s just not Ragnarok specific work, it’s AOU work. Johansson, outside of the archival footage, wasn’t in Ragnarok and was not credited in the credits. Saying in the plot section “the recording of Romanoff soothes Hulk and prompts a transformation back to Banner” is sufficient. She should not be in the cast section. Rusted AutoParts  01:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, let's wait for others to share their opinion on the matter. El Millo (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really have strong feelings one way or another on this, but we should be consistent and the Spider-Man: Far From Home article does mention the appearances via archival footage of Robert Downey Jr and Jeff Bridges. Spanneraol (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a note can be applied into the plot section to notarize Johansson appears in archival footage as opposed to new scenes to indicate this was done, but I just don’t feel it’s correct to include those who are shown in archival footage or pictures because they aren’t actually contributing to the events/making of the film. Rusted AutoParts  02:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a little convoluted. Rusted AutoParts, how do you feel about the mention of the appearances of RDJ and Jeff Bridges in Far From Home that Spanneraol brought up? Are you against those too? El Millo (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I do, as I said above “I just don’t feel it’s correct to include those who are shown in archival footage or pictures because they aren’t actually contributing to the events/making of the film”. Rusted AutoParts 03:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But they do contribute to the events of the film, if by "events" you're referring to the plot, and they contribute their likeness to the making of it. El Millo (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The filmmakers are pulling archival footage from previous movies. Bridges, Downey and Johansson aren’t actually contributing anything. Rusted AutoParts  05:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true. The actors performances while not done for this film still are being used to further the plot.. and they do get paid extra for the use of the footage from the previous films. Spanneraol (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But by means of footage from another movie. Here there's no direct involvement from said actors. Rusted AutoParts  19:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's relevant. The footage was filmed and incorporated into the film in a meaningful way.. It should be mentioned.. as it is... If it was just a "previously on" thing at the beginning of the film like they used to have in some sequels then yea it doesnt need to be there.. but in these cases I think it bears mentioning. Spanneraol (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, as it’s still nothing more than her scene from Age of Ultron. Impacting the plot or not it’s not a direct appearance. No work on her part was fully done, just borrowed. Rusted AutoParts  01:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)