Talk:Thor (film) - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs) at 04:56, 6 February 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:56, 6 February 2015 by Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

GA icon symbolizing Good topic candidates on Misplaced Pages.

Thor (film) is part of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe films" series, a current good topic candidate. A good topic should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thor (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thor (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Thor (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 27, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 27, 2010.The text of the entry was: Did you know

... that Thor, scheduled for release in 2011, was envisioned and pitched to 20th Century Fox as early as 1990?

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: Comic book / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
	This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Corrections

Since a link wasn't good enough, I'll copy and paste what I said on Darkwarriorblake's talk page.

I have reverted your revert :). My reasons are as follows:

Nowhere is it stated, in this continuity at least, that Mjolnir is the source of Thor's power, and it is improper to state so.
As noted, it is not known if Thor's exile played a hand on Odin falling into the Odinsleep or not, so it is improper to state this as well. The rest, it wasn't just Loki finding out, it was him snapping and yelling at Odin that did it. Odin's reasons for taking Loki being (seemingly) for political reasons is part of why Loki has such "'Well Done, Son' Guy" issues, to use the TV Tropes term.
The climax, I simply moved about the order of events - Loki reveals his plan after Thor arrives, not before, so it was an incorrect sequence of given events. The elaboration of why he lets himself fall is perhaps not needed, I know Misplaced Pages dislikes excessive detail in film summaries, but I felt it was important to understanding the plot and Loki's character, which should be the purpose of a summary, to illustrate the subject - Loki being rejected is part of his character as Thor's romance with Jane is to his.

If you have any further desire to question me on these matters, feel free.

Now, excessive detail on Loki? Perhaps, but fine, restore those areas to their former versions. However, do not blindly revert my other edits which are correcting errors in the previous summary. 184.144.31.62 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thor received positive reviews, not mixed-to-positive reviews.

Disambiguation needed to Almighty Thor ?

Both movies premiered in the same year - non-english titles are likely to make it harder to differentiate them - I actually came looking here seeking information on the other movie (not knowing there were two, wondering why the quality was so horrible). I'd add it myself, but I've had bad luck with bold edits, so I rather just suggest it here.--Cyberman TM (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done The articles titles are distinct enough that a hatnote or other such disambiguation note is not needed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added a redirection template for the film of the same year Almighty Thor on the basis that it has a similar title to the subject as per WP:DISTINGUISH. I have added this because whilst attempting to search for the other film I found myself on this page. Whilst looking for the other film you could easily find yourself on this page, although if you were to search for this film it is unlikely you would find yourself on the other film’s page. Therefore the claim that “there's no chance of confusion” would seem a matter of opinion. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated above the titles are very distinct. Also the hatnote reads "not to be confused with". What you are discribing is a navigational dilemma not a matter of confusing this article with the other.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. I've removed the 3O request made there, as the guidelines of that project — like all content dispute resolution at Misplaced Pages — requires thorough discussion before requesting help. One comment each isn't enough, I'm afraid. Please continue to try to talk it out between you and if that comes to a standstill, then reconsider DR. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

They clearly do not share the same title and Thor has never been referred to as Almighty Thor, you cannot be searching for one by searching for the other. If I end up here while looking for Almighty Thor it's because I've typed Thor for some reason and Thor alone, which would be the equivalent of me searching for Die Hard with the query "Hard". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic Cube

Not linking to the Captain America movie in accordance to wiki:EGG is kind of understandable. But prohibiting linking to the Cosmic Cube#Film is not. When someone clicks a link labeled 'mysterious object' they don't expect to be taken to a page explaining the plot device of 'mysterious objects' and their history over the past few thousand years. They expect to be taken to a page about what that object is. MatrixM (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

First sorry, I didn't see that you had already started a discussion. At any rate its best to determine consensus here before boldly changing the article. But back to the topic, the object is never identified within the plot of this film. So without referencing an outside source it is WP:OR, nevermind WP:EGG. I would not be opposed to adding a note, like the one in the CA:TFA article if we have a reference, which I am sure we could find.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source, though it doesn't mention it as the Tesseract. Will see if I can find one that mentions it as such. Also, I would be in agreement, with using a note, as on the CA:TFA article. Also, tread lightly if you Google "Tesseract thor ending", as that has stuff about the DARK WORLD endings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Dismabiguation

There have been two attempts to add a disambiguation header for Thor 1 to this article, referring to a 24 year old satellite that was renamed Thor 1 21 years ago and was scuttered 11 years ago. The article for that series of satellites is already disambiguated, the redirect Thor 1 has 18 views in the last 30 days. The satellite article as a whole has 1000 views in the last thirty days and the film article has 193,927 views in the last thirty days. Not only is it a redirect that few, to barely any, people are using, but they're clearly not using it to find the satellite. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 22:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thor 1 is now a disambiguation page. Disambiguation helps readers find the article they are looking for, regardless of the popularity of particular pages. Cnilep (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it was just the fact that, wrongly or not, Thor 1 was redirected here, but a hatnote should not have been needed here because the page is already disambiguated sufficiently. It appears the error was in redirecting Thor 1 here, which it seems you fixed Cnilep. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This page was not already disambiguated sufficiently from "Thor 1" when "Thor 1" redirected here. That is had a qualifier to disambiguate it from "Thor" made no difference; it was the primary topic for the ambiguous title "Thor 1". If a reader were looking for the satellite under "Thor 1", they would have had no path to get to the article they sought. It does not matter how few those readers are. Now that this article is no longer the primary topic for the ambiguous title "Thor 1", the hatnote is no longer needed, true. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, "Thor 1" should never have been redirected here in the first place. It doesn't likely that a person search searching for this film would actually type "Thor 1", unlike Thor 2, which Thor: The Dark World was actually called for a period of time and is still called colloquially.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Was the alternative plan to add a hatnote to every Thor sequel to disambiguate them from satellites? Yes the visitation frequency of the redirect does matter, because noone was using it, so it wasn't a problem that needed solving. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The plan (no alternative) remains to disambiguate ambiguous titles on Misplaced Pages, through hatnotes and disambiguation pages. No, the visitation frequency does not matter. Topics on Misplaced Pages for ambiguous titles that do not merit navigability are called "deleted articles". -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories: