Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Post-credits scene

@TriiipleThreat, Favre1fan93, Richiekim, and Adamstom.97: All righty, following through on WP:BRD, I have a bone to pick with the post-credits scene's inclusion in the plot summary. I already removed it and was reverted, so I come here. I fail to see why the completely inconsequential scene should be included in this plot summary. If it were literally anywhere else in the film, it wouldn't be included because it would be irrelevant. Perhaps right after Tivan's collection explodes, we see Cosmo lick him and Howard make fun of him, then the film goes on. Would we include that? In my opinion, no, we wouldn't. And honestly, I cannot disagree more with the rationale of "Other MCU films include post credit scenes in the plot section". MCU films are not immune to WP:FILM standards and WP:FILMPLOT, and yet this post-credit scene sits here in all of its irrelevance. What are some other thoughts?

Note: I am not, in any way, opposed to including post-credit scenes. However, inconsequential or joke ones (such as this film's scenes, the shawarma scene in The Avengers, the Bruce Banner scene in Iron Man 3) have no basis for inclusion, in my opinion. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how I feel about including this particular post-credits scene. I think it's trivial, but unless the plot summary is overly-long or such I don't know that it's worth making an issue of. That said, the edit summary arguing for its inclusion falls afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFF. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a passage in WP:FILMPLOT that I'm basing a lot of this on, and I flubbed by not including it. "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." In the case of all of the instances I listed, I believe they fall under "individual jokes". Also yeah, the edit summary rubbed me the wrong way in that regard. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The post-credit scenes are already mentioned in the "Post-production" section, detailing their production and creating. And, now that they were at it, the plotless plot of both ones, to give context. So this discussion is a bit pointless. I'm just saying. Cambalachero (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Cambalachero, I'm a bit stumped as to where you stand. Perhaps it's my lack of coffee this morning, but the sentence "And, now that they were at it, the plotless plot of both ones, to give context" is really confusing me. Also, when disagreements happen, discussion is never pointless. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I have a differing opinion to at least one other editor. We either discuss it, or we edit war. So in other words, we discuss it. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a third option: if the issue is so small, just let it go. As for the plots, they are just "Drax sharps his blades while Groot dances" and "The Collector is sitting in the ruins of his lab, and Cosmo and Howard the Duck are also there". Neither of them is a stinger that gives an unexpected clarification over some detail of the plot (such as who had given Loki his army in The Avengers) or a stinger that provides a "to be continued" ending (such as Magneto and Xavier showing up at the airport to recruit Wolverine against the Sentinels). They are just inconsequential jokes. Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

On a lark I checked the word count and got 701, one over the WP:FILMPLOT recommendation. i wouldn't remove this information for a one word violation, but if the plot is expanded further this would be on the shortlist of things I might be inclined to remove. So maybe it's a question of how we anticipate the plot summary evolving and whether it might be worth removing this in favor of more pertinent material. DonIago (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the plot needs any more expanding, personally, so in terms of word count this content is fine. However, that isn't really what I was focused on when I removed it. Even if the word count was 500, I still wouldn't think that this scene should be included. I'm failing to see a reason that a non-notable scene after the credits should be any more notable than a non-notable scene in the film. It's like specifying that that Korath is the only one to actually call Quill "Star-Lord", or that Groot plucks a flower off of his hand and gives it to a girl, or that Drax doesn't understand metaphors. All of those things, in terms of the plot, are completely inconsequential, and the post-credits scene is in the exact same realm. I'm not trying to bludgeon the argument, I just want to make sure that my reasonings for starting this discussion are clear. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 17:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I might be pushing the footnote approach a little too much these days, but maybe the scene could be mentioned in a "Footnotes" section? I agree that it does not belong in the "Plot" section since it is not a key detail in describing the contents of the primary source (the film itself). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To go off of Richie's edit summary, we are attempting to bring all released MCU film articles up to Good Topic status, in the very near future. That said, we are attempting to have some uniformity across each of these articles. That is why all post-credit scenes are together in the plot summary. Now, it may be helpful to look at other films that have post credit scenes, important or "jokes", and see a collection how those are handled. I'm not to fond of Erik's suggestion to use a footnote. I am leaning a bit towards what Cambalachero said above on discussing it in the Production section. Yet, if we went this route, what would we do to some films where there is not as much info released about them to justify not including the wording in the plot? (Also Sock, I didn't get your ping to this.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If we include appropriate post-credit scenes, but not joke-type post-credit scenes, we are still being consistent throughout the MCU pages, so I don't think that really should be an issue Favre. As for this scene in particular, since there is a whole paragraph explaining the making of it in the post-production section, and the purpose of the plot summary is to give context to the production info, I would say we should keep it in there. If there was no more mention of it on the page then I would say take it out, but that isn't the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sock. Something that is so inconsequential (unlike, for example the Captain America 2 post-credits scenes) shouldn't be included - even if the word limit allowed it. Furthermore, I agree there should be a standardised approach to constructing articles. That's what Wikipedia guidelines are for. But when, Favre, you say that MCU film articles should be uniform, it's more like you mean identical. You have been trying to do this with the box-office section as well. The relevance of post-credits scenes to the plot differs between films, as does the relevance of grosses/rankings to the box office. The article should contain the gross of Avengers in Argentina because it broke in a record and the mid-credits scene of Cap 2 should be included because it gives crucial info about the plot. Because it is included for other films is not an acceptable argument, as Sock has already stated. Spinc5 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It's 704 words. There's no issue with that scene belonging and there's no speaking to it's importance. All the other post-credit scenes are just ambiguous baiting. Who is to say this is anything different? Especially given that Cosmo is actually a member of the Guardians in the comics.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Box office: changes needed

You can find all my points and arguments here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film)/Archive_2#Box_office_-_overbloated

Basically, too many details that aren't notable (e.g. opening weekends in various countries that weren't records of any sort etc), recentism, application of ranking methods/criteria that are meaningless (as in they don't offer any insight into why the film's run is considered notable/significant).

Please consider weighing in with specific targeted arguments.

This is my version:

Box office

Guardians of the Galaxy has earned $332,226,145 in North America, as of December 7, 2014, and $439,600,000 in other countries, as of November 16, 2014, for a worldwide total of $771,826,145.[3] Worldwide, it is the second highest-grossing non-sequel superhero film, behind Spider-Man,[192][193] the third highest-grossing film in the MCU, behind The Avengers and Iron Man 3,[194] the second highest-grossing 2014 film and the highest-grossing superhero film of 2014.[195] It had a worldwide opening weekend of $160.7 million.[196]

North America

Guardians of the Galaxy is the highest-grossing 2014 film[197] and the third highest-grossing MCU film.[198] It earned $11.2 million during its Thursday late-night showings, the biggest Thursday late-night start in 2014.[199] IMAX accounted for 17% of the total gross ($1.9 million), setting an August record for IMAX late-night showings.[151] On its opening day, the film earned $37.8 million, including the Thursday late-night earnings.[200] It topped the box office during its opening weekend with $94.3 million, setting an opening-weekend record for August[201] and scoring the third biggest debut of 2014.[202] The film's success was partially attributed to its appeal to both genders: the opening weekend audience was 44% female, which is the biggest proportion ever for a MCU film,[201] and 55% was over the age of 25. During its opening weekend, 3-D showings accounted for 45% of ticket sales, while the IMAX opening-weekend gross set a record for the month of August ($11.7 million).[201]

Although the film fell to second place in its second and third weekends, behind Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,[203][204] it topped the box office on its fourth, fifth and sixth weekend.[205][206][207] It tied The Dark Knight for the most weeks at number one (four in total) among superhero films[208] and also scored the third largest Labor Day four-day weekend.[209] As of December 10, 2014, it is the only 2014 film to have passed $300 million.[210] It remained in the Top 10 for ten weekends[211] and was said to have "injected life" into an otherwise lower than normal summer box office.[212][213][214]

Outside North America

It is the eighth highest-grossing 2014 film[215] and the fifth highest-grossing MCU film.[198] On its opening weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was released in 42 markets and grossed $67.4 million.[216] The film topped the weekend box office two times, on its first and second weekends.[217] On its twelfth weekend, it was in a close second ($22.0 million), behind Dracula Untold (estimated $22.5 million), although this ranking is based on estimates since the the actuals for the latter were not reported.[194] Its biggest opening occurred in China ($31.1 million),[218] where the film set an October opening-weekend record,[219] followed by Russia and the CIS ($12.9 million) and the UK, Ireland and Malta ($10.7 million).[220] These are also the three biggest markets in total earnings for the film: $96.5 million in China, $47.4 million in the UK, Irleand and Malta and $37.5 million in Russia and the CIS.[220]Spinc5 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

After reading snippets of the previous discussion on this topic, I am rather surprised that the box office section is still overwhelmed with extraneous details. Spinc5' suggested version fixes most of the issues of the current version. For example, the introduction makes a not-so-notable remark that it was the "7th" film to hit the $200 million mark and attaches it with a by-the-way comment that it was accomplished "in 10 days." The overseas section also suffers the same problem with overly stretched comparisons to other CB movies and insignificant remarks such as "seventh highest grossing market for the film." If were to report every single weekend gross of every country then the text would go on for pages. I think Spinc5's approach is the most reasonable and effective one. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've worked with Spinc5, and I've always loved his attention to detail and his copious citing. And over the last couple of years especially, he's been great in not including extraneous box-office details and centering on the more significant stats. I applaud you both for taking this on. My one suggestion would be to drop "while the IMAX opening-weekend gross set a record for the month of August ($11.7 million)." I think "highest IMAX opening-weekend gross for the month of August" is probably parsing b.o. records a bit too finely. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, the proposed lead in this thread calls it "the third highest-grossing film in the MCU," but that appears to be true only in North America, since "Outside North America" calls it "the fifth highest-grossing MCU film." So there's a contradiction. If the lead refers only to in North America, it seems like it would make sense to droop that line from the lead and only mention it in the "In North America" section. --19:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Spinc5 was trying to make a compromise by not shedding off too much of the previous details. But, you have a point IMAX records are rarely considered important, in fact, BOM doesn't even have an organized table for them. The introduction is meant to describe the film's performance worldwide.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned editor above Eddyghazaley, the film is the third highest grossing MCU film overall and in the United States, but not in the international market. The statement is still correct that Guardians is the third highest-grossing MCU film, as it has made the third largest amount of money after Avengers and Iron Man 3. But the statement that the film is the fourth highest grossing outside of the United States is correct. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 12:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Now seeing the box office info as a whole, I was/am agreeable to most of these changes. I have, however, edited the section to be consistent across other MCU pages, removed some BOM rankings that I did not feel were distinctive enough for this film and would possibly eventually change, as well as adding back in some previous wording or phrasing used. The info was also made chronological. I don't believe any of my readditions were the main points of contention earlier. References were also consolidated, replacing some unnecessary additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Where should I start?

1. "fourth Marvel Studios film to surpass $700 million" For the umpteenth time I will tell you that this is not significant. $700M is an arbitrary threshold. Why not say "third Marvel Studios film to surpass $750 million". This will be removed unless you finally provided any concrete argument to justify these additions.

2. You said you removed "rankings that [...] would possibly eventually change". However, you added "the biggest Thursday evening start for a movie in 2014" and "Its debut weekend gross was the third biggest of 2014". These are not true anymore, unlike the rankings I added: "highest-grossing 2014 film and the third highest-grossing MCU film" which are arguably more relevant as they compare across a wider range of films and talk about total gross - not midnight numbers. In retrospect, the total gross matters more.

3. You say: "the first film in 2014 to top the domestic box office in non-consecutive weeks". Why is this so important? Other films have achieved this in previous years. Compare it first at an all-time level and check if it has a significant ranking. If not, then don't mention it at all.

4. Same stands for this: "first MCU film to be the top film for four weeks". COUNTLESS non-MCU films have achieved this. We can use the criterion "MCU films" for a certain number of milestones (opening weekend, total gross, opening day) but "number of weeks at number one" is too trivial a milestone to rank it only against MCU films. If it had compared well against all films all-time, then this would be relevant.

5. Menitoning the date for every single record overwhelms the article. In the case of "it became the biggest film of the year", why is the date even important to anyone who's reading the article. Does it matter if it was in October or December or whatever?

6. In the overseas section, you are mentioning too many countries (Mexico, Brazil, South Korea) without justifying their importance. The film did not break any records in those countries and they weren't its biggest territories - I believe the three biggest territories are sufficient.

7. "In its sixth weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was playing in 69 territories, its most" I do not understand why this is important.

8. "Guardian of the Galaxy 's twelfth weekend saw an additional $21.3 million from China" Is the fact that it was its twelfth weekend important? Also, why is the second weekend of its run in China important? We mentioned its opening weekend and its final gross. I believe that's enough.

In contrast with previous occasions, your version is not the consensus. Please justify your changes USING SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS otherwise they will be undone. Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

1. That can probably be removed and just leave it as the third highest MCU.

2. You had the Thursday night record. I did not readd that. As for the other, it was relevant when the weekend happened. If the record has since been surpassed or broken, wording can be added (such as "at the time" etc.)

3. Considering how lack luster the industry box office was this summer (which is noted), toping the box office in non-consecutive weeks is impressive, stating that despite decreasing after the initial week at #1, it was able to return to the top spot.

4. Considering all that was said about this film before its release (that it would fail, Marvel would have a miss, etc.), compared against those other films, where the previous juggernauts were The Avengers (crossover film) and Iron Man 3 (sequel film), that is worth noting. I do not find your statement that this criterea can not be used for this parameter correct.

5. Overwhelms? Hardly. The film opened on August 1, and by the end of the month, it was already the top domestic film of the year, and hardly two months after opening, became the first film of 2014 to hit $300 million domestically. Removing the dates, it becomes, "Did this happen in early December, at the tail end of its theatrical run, when it was trying to squeeze every last dollar out?" or "Did it happen quickly in the run?" (which is the case).

6. Those were listed in the source as the biggest debuts the film's opening weekend. Using your logic, that would just truncate in this statement South Korea, as Mexico and Brazil are tied for third.

7. That can be moved to the release section.

8. The latter part of that source what I was going for, that in that week China became the largest market. And in order to get there, it had to have made more money (hence the former part).

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Good

2. You said it: "it was relevant when the weekend happened". In retrospect, it is not relevant. That's the whole point I'm trying to make in the past two months. If a new film broke the opening-weekend record for 2014 during every month of the year, would all these films' Wikipedia articles state that they set a record "at the time"? No. Only the one that actually achieved the record, when the year ended, would have this sentence.

3. We already say that it topped the weekend on non-consecutive weekends ("on its first, fourth, fifth and sixth weekend"). We do not have to say that it was the only film in 2014 to achieve this. Mentioning the year is what I find unnecessary.

4. Well, others obviously do. We have to draw a line somewhere. The statement "first MCU film to be the top film for four weeks" crosses this line imo. "Superhero film" - instead of "MCU film" - is more inclusive and could be justified.

5. The number of days that a film took to reach a certain milestone does not always indicate how well the movie did. Frozen took more days to reach $300M than Gaurdians but earned more by the end of its run. Gaurdians ranks 28th anyway. So the number of days it took is neither notable nor necessary to mention. Furthermore, we state that the film made $332M. That's $32M more than $300M. How can someone possibly think that, when the film reached $300M, it was "trying to squeeze every last dollar out"?

6. Wikipedia guidelines say "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". They also say "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable." Elsewhere the guidelines say: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". This is the problem here: we can't mention every single country. Also the article can't be a list of grosses per country. Anything that broke records is included. The three highest grossing territories can be included (in this case: China, Russia and the UK). More than three could be included, but again we have to draw a line somewhere.

7. Fine.

8. Stick with the latter part - which we have already implied by saying: "the film's three biggest markets in total earnings are: China ($96.5 million); the UK ($47.4 million); and Russia ($37.5 million)". We do not need to state how much it made on its second weekend to mention that it is the biggest market for the film outside the US.

Spinc5 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sock, Eddyghazaley, and Tenebrae: Would you care to share your opinions on these points. Points 1 and 7 have been adjust, so it would be 2-6 and 8. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

We have waited a whole week since you changed the version and I disagreed. If they wanted to add something they would have already done it. Besides, they've said in previous posts that they agree with my version. What you changed this time is basically that you re-added what was included in your previous version, with which they have disagreed already. So I will change to my version again. Please do not change it again unless you first post your changes here first and ask if anyone agrees with you, just like I did earlier. Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Really? That is NOT how discussions work here. First, waiting only a week for a response is beyond silly, especially now with the holiday season. A previous support for a version of content does NOT automatically mean they will support this new version. You should not be assuming that. Second, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is wrong or improper for this article, which none of this is. You are not the be-all and end-all decider for this section, which you seem to be failing to see or get past that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, since my edit, no one, who supported yours or otherwise, came around and opposed any of my changes (besides a misread by Sock) except you, so I don't believe your statement that your original change is consensus any more. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

...apparently the "pinging" system may not be working?? Sock did not get his ping from me, and I did not get his ping to me in a discussion below. He will be joining this new conversation shortly. I will try to ping with the "u" template the other users again. Eddyghazaley Tenebrae - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the version I wrote is the consensus, since a few more editors weighed in and agreed with me. How many more times will you revert back to your version when no other editor has ever explicitly agreed with your version?

Secondly, you say: "A previous support for a version of content does NOT automatically mean they will support this new version." Except the new version that you wrote contains almost everything from your previous version so they aren't really any different. So it is most likely they won't support this new version either.

I have been asking for your comments continuously and you keep reverting the article back to your version which, in a few words, contains recentism and minutiae, while lacking a retrospective approach (see above, in case you forgot).

Please don't accuse me of being subjective and making changes because "I don't like it" or whatever. Unlike you, I have provided tons of arguments that you keep ignoring. Spinc5 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I have to side with Spinc5 on this. My major concern with this version is the second paragraph of the North American section; it is an unnecessary listing of meaningless records. As many other people have mentioned before, such records only exist because you can make them exist; they only serve to embellish a film's performance. For example, a film released in this week can easily be called the first film of the year to gross more than $30 million. Does it mean much? Nope. Also, if the scope is limited to 2014, there are many other records that people might create that aren't really notable. For that reason, the main focus should be on general box office accomplishments that don't suffer from minutiae and recentism. Phil Contrino's "opinion" on the success of the film is slightly fan-boyish; it doesn't sound at all like a professional. I am well aware of his credibility, but his language over here doesn't reflect his competency. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I just cut out some of the "offending" content and copy edited others (see the Contrino quote now, for example). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the sentences in the Noth American section still start with "the first film of 2014 to...". RECENTISM, RECENTISM, RECENTISM. How many more times do we have to say this, while you stubbornly ignore our arguments (which are based on Wikipedia guidelines)? Limiting the comparison to films from 2014 makes the records "apparently notable", but all-time comparisons, as I have said before, reveal that these "records" are not notable at all. I have also expressed my disagreement with some of the info in the overseas section and I don't need to mention my points again. Spinc5 (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Today, tomorrow, five years from now, those are still accomplishments for the film. And they all relate and tie into the first sentence of that paragraph, as well as the "injected life" sentence. It is not like they are just being listed; by starting that sentence with "By doing so", it is tying it to the weekend number one information. As for the international information, the only thing (again) based on what you said, would be to remove the South Korea. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Favre, if they are achievements notable enough to be covered by reliable sources they there is no reason not to mention them beyond a personal belief in what is, and isn't of value. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Cassette tape

Hi. Recently an IP editor added verbiage regarding the cassette tape Quill opens at the end of the film. I saw the edit and didn't revert it, because it was accurate. Darkwarriorblake reverted the edit, however, because the initial cassette tape is not mentioned in the plot summary, which is correct. My issue is that in an earlier incarnation of the article the original tape was mentioned (it was the version right before the article was nominated for GA status). The only reason the cassette at the end of the film is relevant is due to Quill's having gotten the earlier cassette tape. I think that either the earlier tape needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the plot summary (and then the IP's edit re-established), or the mention of the second cassette tape should be omitted. Onel5969 (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The meaning is established in it being a present from his dead mum. Introducing another tape means nothing since we don't mention in the plot that he listens to the songs or that the songs play over the film.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: I'm confused as to where you stand. If I'm reading Onel5969's post right (Onel, please correct me if I'm wrong), he's suggesting that we either don't mention any cassette tapes or we mention both. Where do you stand on this? Personally, I think just removing the reference to the second tape would be preferable, as neither cassette have a huge impact on the plot. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 20:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: - That's precisely what I meant, and what I'm proposing. Sorry I was unclear.Onel5969 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think both should be mentioned, as they are both presents from his dead mum that mean a lot to him and are featured pretty heavily throughout the film, and because of the significance of the soundtrack mentioned later in the page in the music section (since the plot summary is here to give context to the rest of the info on the page). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The tape does not need to be mentioned anywhere else in the plot for the plot to make sense, the only important aspect is that he finally opens the last gift he received from his mother, resolving his mother issues. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Awards in lead

We seem to have the beginnings of a possible edit war on this issue; so just putting this here as an encouragement for editors to discuss the matter. DonIago (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that this film has been nominated for Oscars and BAFTAs for both its visual effects and makeup. I think inclusion of that depends on how one reads WP:LEAD. Even if these awards are relatively minor in their respective families, it seems like being recognized on this level is worth noting. Per WP:LEAD, it would certainly entice readers into learning more about the film's visual effects and makeup. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur, Erik. I think it would be a disservice to readers who are looking only for an overview of the film to exclude nominations for awards from such prestigious organizations. Even if we don't mention which specific nominations the film received, we should at least mention that nominations were made. BOVINEBOY2008 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel award information should be in the lead, but should we possibly wait until winners are announced? Then we can get a better idea of what was won, and formulate a sentence or two on that info, for nominations and awards won. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Facebook Event

James Gunn is doing an event right now where he is watching the film along with fans and posting behind-the-scenes info, stories, etc. as comments on a specific post as the movie goes on to form a live commentary. Should something he says be appropriate for inclusion in this article, how would one cite the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.33.204 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not really anything that is note worthy for inclusion. Think of it in a similar way to convention Q&A or interviews. Just because it is a little unconventional, doesn't make it anything special to include in the article. Only exception may be if he reveals anything in that content. Then we could add what he says here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead describe the orb as a "powerful, coveted orb"?

"powerful artifact" appears to have been agreed upon. Number 5 7 13:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead describe the orb as a "powerful, coveted orb"? OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: The plot synopsis says that the orb contains a stone that has the power to destroy a galaxy. As such, I think it is helpful to tell the reader in the lead that it is a "powerful, coveted orb."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. You're both wrong. It should be "a powerful orb", not "coveted orb" or "powerful, coveted orb". If something is powerful then it is often coveted; if the group are on the run after stealing it, then we know it's coveted. (This is a pleasingly silly RFC.) Popcornduff (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I'm tempted to suggest "powerful artifact" rather than "powerful orb". To me the latter phrase just sounds a bit silly (though it's okay in the Plot summary). DonIago (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Doniago's suggestion. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 14:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Doniago's suggestion also. Popcornduff (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Any objection to "powerful artifact" in place of "powerful orb"? DonIago (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the silence as a lack of objection. Thanks all! DonIago (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK?

This article was never nominated for a DYK. Anyone up to helping create one? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Genre in lead

I think the lead should say science fiction and not superhero because it does not fit the general superhero genre formula. If it wasn't based on comic books, it probably wouldn't be considered to be superhero movie at all. However, with all the space travel, aliens and advanced technology, it clearly fits the science fiction formula. JDDJS (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the film isn't really a superhero movie, but it still seems to generally be considered one. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's based on Marvel Comics and characters, thus it is a superhero film, which subsequently uses the genres of sci-fi and comedy. Superhero is still the most generic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides what it is based on, it fits none of the general Superhero film criteria, but all of the sci-fi criteria. I'm not arguing against it being included in Superhero categories, but since it fits so few of the superhero criteria it does not make sense to label that as it's most generic genre. JDDJS (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what direction this (or any other MCU film) decides to take their genre, the primary genre (WP:FILMLEAD) for all of them is still superhero films, because they are produced by Marvel, and at its most basic level, each are about characters and/or comic books or storyline elements from Marvel Comics. Then you can pile on the type of genre the film encompasses. For this it was sci-fi and comedy. For Cap: TWS, it was a political thriller. Ant-Man looks to also be a comedy. But again, per WP:FILMLEAD the "the primary genre...which it is verifiably classified" would be superhero. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how you got from "Based on Marvel Comics" to "superhero". Yes, many Marvel Comics' characters, especially most of their most popular ones, are superheroes, but they are not all so. Howard the Duck is a good example of this - he is in no way a superhero, and his film is appropriately not described as such in the lead, even though he is a Marvel Comics character. The same would be said if Marvel made a movie about its western characters. Just because they are from Marvel Comics, does not mean that they are superheroes. The Guardians aren't really superheroes if you think about it, and even if we decide to consider them to be superheroes, I think it is clear in watching the movie that it is more of a straight sci-fi adventure comedy than a superhero film. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The source material does not matter when it comes to the genre of the film. The original Green Hornet was not a comedy, but since the film is clearly intended to be one, it is included in the lead. Also, your examples of Cap: TWS and Ant-Man don't work here because unlike Guardians of the Galaxy, those films fit a lot of the general criteria superhero film. Besides the fact that it is based on Marvel characters, can you explain what elements of the film makes it a superhero film? JDDJS (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well a science fiction film is a subgenre of a superhero film (regardless of how extensive the sci-fi is) so superhero is still the most general cat. And if the wording is the issue, we could pipe it as follows: [[superhero film|comic book film]]. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"a science fiction film is a subgenre of a superhero film " I'm sorry, but that is 100% wrong. Majority of science fiction films are not considered superhero films. They are completely different. Are you seriously trying to say that movies like Star Trek, E.T., District 9, Back to the Future, Her, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Alien are superhero films? If anything, superhero films would be a subgenre of science fiction, but even that doesn't work because of movies like Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Kick-Ass and the Legend of Zorro. And your compromise to use "comic book film" is not at all valid because that is not a genre. We don't call Harry Potter a novel film. JDDJS (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying all sci-fi films are a subgenre of superhero. I'm saying that you start with the superhero genre as the general descriptor, then you get specific from that, either to say sci-fi or action or what ever else the film may be. That's was my point, that, yes even though this is a sci-fi film, the superhero genre will still be a "hierarchy" above it as the most general. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, per reliable sources, a majority claim it as a superhero film. (also notifying TriiipleThreat per their recent edit about this discussion.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it should be removed from the superhero sub cats. I'm saying that the most basic genre is science fiction because it fits that much more than it fits superhero. JDDJS (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Favre1fan, the film is generally regarded as a superhero film by reliable sources. From there, it can be broken down into other genres: science-fiction, action, comedy, etc. The superhero genre can take all forms, they don't all have to feature people wearing tights and flying around cities. There are fantasy based superheroes, western based superheroes and of course space faring superheroes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Put it this way. If we were to include two genres, would you describe it as a "superhero science-fiction film" or a "science-fiction superhero film"? I bet most people would say its the latter. In the case of the latter, superhero is the most general genre because science-fiction is being used to describe what type of superhero film it is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes this a superhero film? I get that sources define it as such, so it should remain in the sub cats, but other than the fact that it is based on Marvel comics, what makes this film a superhero film? Because I can't think of anything. JDDJS (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sequels

In an interview with GQ in the frame of the promo of Jurassic World, Chris Pratt has indicated that he signed to appear as Star-Lord in five films, which includes two Guardians of the Galaxy sequels, and two other unspecified films. Therefore I think the section header should be plural. Hektor (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The section is based on any announced films, not potential films actors have on their contracts. So it should stay as such until a third Guardians film is (ever) announced. Please see The Incredible Hulk as an example of why we would not do this. Multiple actors in that film have options on their contracts to reappear in sequel films, yet Marvel has not announced a sequel Hulk film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

When I wrote into the Finnish version of this article about Del Toro's return to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2., it was undone because they said the source indicated that it was a mere comment from another actor and not an official confirmation. CAJH (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Review in the Nerdist

This concerns this reversion [1]. I feel that, in addition to the independent value of Anderson's analysis, the fact that people are still talking about this movie two years later and comparing it to later releases is significant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I feel that Anderson's review has considerable value. Not only does it demonstrate that the film is still relevant two years later, but while most of the other reviews in the critical response section say that the film was good or bad, Anderson gets into the underlying reasons why it was so well received. That more than earns the space it takes up, which I'm guessing might be your reason for removing it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because your reasoning was "per the talk page" and I couldn't find anything supporting its inclusion (outside of your one post with no replies). You hardly waited a day for responses and apparently decided since no one commented, it was all good to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to The Nerdist, we already have over ten samples of reviews from some of the most prestigious newspapers and trade publications. The Nerdist is frankly not as reputable as these other sources. And as you say its only been two years, the film is still fresh in the zeitgeist. Its not like its the 30th anniversary or anything. Also I disagree with your claim, "while most of the other reviews in the critical response section say that the film was good or bad, Anderson gets into the underlying reasons why it was so well received." All the samples given state their reasoning. Besides the full review not even about this film, its about Deadpool.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, I waited more than a day and no one objected.

None of those other sources get into the underlying strategy or core issue of why the film was so popular. They're all talking about "cheeky tone" or individual actors' performances. Those are all surface issues. None of them talk about the adaptation of the work from the source material or what risks the studio did and did not decide to take. The fact that Guardians is being shown in the context of a wider pattern in superhero movies means that, while The Nerdist isn't The New York Times, it's also giving us some depth that NYT hasn't hit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the MPAA Rating for this film?

I am a parent looking for films to watch with my children. It seems quite odd to me that given the depth of information that has been recorded about this film, I do not see the film's rating posted anywhere on this page? Someone might want to address that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.21.19 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:FILMRATING for why no film ratings are not included (generally) on any film article across Wikipedia. Additionally, please also read WP:NOTFORUM. Talk pages are not forums, which this post is boarder line of going against that policy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft for Guardians of the Galaxy sequel

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy at Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy 2 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2016

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. Per WP:SNOW, this isn't happening. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy (film) → Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 – I just found out that the second Guardians of the Galaxy movie will be titled Vol. 2. 2.85.7.245 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Regardless of what the second film is called, the WP:COMMONNAME of the first film is not Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. Betty Logan (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The title of the sequel has no bearing on the name of this film. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, rationale given does not meet WP:NAMECHANGES — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a made up name. PC78 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose. After the announcement of title of the sequel to this film, Gunn began referring to this film as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. However, that is not its name. Proper mention of this is included in the lead, but the page should not be moved to that location. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2016 (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.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1

I agree with the anon editor on this one, Gunn calling it "Vol. 1" a few times seems extremely trivial. The film was not released under that title, has never been rereleased or marketed with that title, and is not known by that title. This is no different to people calling the first Iron Man film "Iron Man 1"- it's for clarity of language when talking about multiple similarly-titled films, not a retitling of this film. The lead is a summary of important information from the article, not a dumping ground for minutiae.

If, at some point in the future, the film is actually referred to as "Vol. 1", in any official capacity, then we could talk about adding it to the lead. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the article should not be named this, but there definitely should be a note saying this is vol. 1. The producers and distributors are clearly marketing the second film as vol. 2, which means they want this to be known as vol. 1. Chase (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The second film is titled Vol. 2. This film is not titled Vol. 1, nor is it commonly known as Vol. 1, nor is it referred to as Vol. 1 outside of a small handful of interviews with the director where he is comparing the two films. Most films are spoken about as [Title] 1 when a sequel comes around, we don't mention it because it's trivial, it's language so a speaker can clearly identify the film opposite its sequel. When people speak about the Godfather trilogy they call the first film Part I for clarity, that doesn't mean the film is commonly known as The Godfather Part I.

If the studio "[wants] this to be known as vol. 1" as you suggest then they'll refer to it as "Vol. 1" in a meaningful capacity at some future point, and we can add it as an alternate title then. That's not what the current sourcing indicates. -Fandraltastic (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is very likely that, in the future, the Guardians of the Galaxy films will be sold in a complete package, and the first one will become "Vol. 1" or something like that. That was, for example, the case of the "Star Wars" film, which is now universally known as "A new hope", although that wasn't the original name. But that's something for the future. Right here and now, September 2016, there is a single Guardians of the Galaxy film, and it has not been renamed in advance, so we should stick to the way things are. After all, the "Vol. X" may be discarded along the way and replaced by some other numbering system. Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Since Gunn has referred to it as Vol. 1, and that is not standard (we wouldn't note it being called Guardians of the Galaxy 1, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 is less obvious), I think it should be mentioned in the article, but perhaps how it currently is gives too much weight to an unofficial and non-common title. Why not a note, like we already have for Cosmo and Howard, that says Gunn retroactively refers to the film as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that vol.2 will end up being called something else once it is released and thus not necessitating a retroactive name change. I recommend a "wait and see" approach. Betty Logan (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Why do you think that? Vol. 2 is it's title, after being known as the Guardians of the Galaxy sequel, or informally as Guardians of the Galaxy 2. For the topic at hand, I added this statement to the lead, because it seemed pretty notable to refer to the film in such a way, beyond just saying Guardians 1 etc. And it was multiple instances, not just a one time thing. I used "referred" to make it clear that it is not the official name of the film in any way (yet). And the lead seemed the best place to state such, because it has nothing to do with its "release" so it wouldn't fit there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The placement and wording make it seem like an important piece of information, as though the film is commonly referred to as such. You're right that it has nothing to do with the production, or release, or anything the article covers, which is why it seems to be a piece of trivia ("the director retroactively used the sequel's numbering scheme to refer to the film"). Something does not have to be untrue to be trivial. Perhaps it will become commonly referred to as Vol. 1 down the line, which would warrant a mention, but that's not the case for now. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I do feel that it is more than just trivia since it isn't standard, and has happened multiple times. And I think the note solves the problem of trying to fit it in an appropriate place. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Why has someone reverted the annotation that the cassette at the end of the movie can be considered a 'Vol 2'?

WP:PLOTBLOAT and it has no relevance at all to the story. It is only important that it is a cassette, not what it is called in context. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Crashed "Milano"

Hello, earlier this month I amended a minor error in the plot summary which was reverted, namely, that Rocket crashes the Milano into the Dark Aster to disable it, when, in fact, after several rewatches of the film, Quill's group had used the Milano way earlier to breach the Dark Aster in the first place. Rocket was separated from the group in his own personal ship (dubbed in the unofficial wiki as the Warbird or something, and easily distinguishable from the Milano by its enormous wing guns), which he rams the Dark Aster with, not the Milano. Is there something I or anyone else can do about this without edit warring like crazy? 124.189.145.155 (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have just done a wee rewrite to fix this and keep the summary under the word limit. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Kraglin's full name

Don't recall it being said in the film, or in the credits, but during the Nova line-up scene, it is listed in Quill's data as "Kraglin Obfonteri". Reliable source for this here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ensemble film Comment

GoneIn60, I wanted to go into more detail why I reverted your edit as a courtesy to you. The "Accolades" section of this article shows that the film won an award for "Best Ensemble" at the the 2014 Detroit Film Critics Society Awards. Also, it was a nominee for the award of "Best Ensemble Acting" at the 2014 Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards. This alone should be enough to convince anyone it's an ensemble film, but if it isn't then you still have the other sources to go along with it to say that it is. Combine all this with the fact that Ensemble cast defines an ensemble as, "made up of cast members in which the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time in a dramatic production." and there can be no doubt that this is an ensemble film. Huggums537 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so we've found a third (or fourth) definition of "ensemble": when a cast is given an "ensemble award" that just refers to the entire cast, not the cast of main characters who have roughly equal screen time. Anyway, if you have seen the film, you know that a significant portion of it is devoted to Peter Quill (the protagonist) without even mentioning the rest of the "five". One of the others has a total of two lines with five distinct words said throughout the film, and another doesn't appear at all until easily half an hour in. I think a fair case could be made that GOTG2 meets the definition of "ensemble cast" I've been promoting elsewhere, but I'm a bit more ambivalent on this film for the above reasons. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok. So, now you're just following me over here so you can harass me here too? Is that it hiriji? Huggums537 (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC) And, you didn't even have the common courtesy to bring any sources for your "third (or fourth) definitions"? So, your only argument against the reliable sources is, "that's not what I saw in the film"? Tsk, tsk. Shameful. Huggums537 (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an article on one of my two or three favourite films of all time, and I'm prety sure I've edited it directly at least once or twice. Moreover, it's part of the same series as Captain America: Civil War, to whose article you followed me, and your edits here are closely related to your edits on that article you followed me to. Let's not talking about hounding, OK?

What kind of sources would you like? "ensemble" appears in lots of dictionaries. Wiktionary, for example, lists four definitions, none of which appear to be identical to either of the two we have already been discussing on WT:FILM, WP:RSN and the CA3 talk page, so that's six.

Thank you very much for providing this extremely useful Wiktionary source! Unfortunately, there is nothing at all in the source that matches the "definition" you posted above: "when a cast is given an "ensemble award" that just refers to the entire cast, not the cast of main characters who have roughly equal screen time." So, that "definition" is still pretty much meaningless until you can back it up properly. However, the source is still useful because it shows that this is an ensemble film according to two of the definitions within the source. 1) "a group of separate things that contribute to a coordinated whole", and 2) "a group of musicians, dancers, actors, etc who perform together". In fact, when you look at this source along with the definition that I provided, it can easily be determined that this film is definitely an ensemble film by any sourced definition of the term, "ensemble". So, thanks for the source! Huggums537 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, my copy of the OED provides two distinct/independent definitions and two "sub-definitions" of each, meaning six in total. I am not sure if you own the same edition of the OED, and I am not about to waste my time trying to load up the online edition to check that it gives the same six meanings. The same is true for MW, although unlike the OED I don't own an offline copy that I can easily consult. But you are clearly trolling now anyway, and you will be blocked soon enough if you don't stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That's ok, you don't have to "load up the online edition" because the burden is on me anyway, right? So here we have several different dictionary sources (none of them mentions the definition you gave, but all of them define the film as an ensemble): [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]. Huggums537 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable secondary sources backing up my assessment of the film, because said assessment is accurate and was probably made by 99% of the millions of people who saw it -- do you really want me to go hunting for them? Once again, I don't like that Wikipedia plot summaries can be sourced directly to primary sources, but that is how the rules work at the moment. And even if the rules were amended so that plot summaries derived from primary sources were unacceptable, the same rules would not be applicable to talk page comments -- so far in my interactions with you, you have not cited a single third-party reliable source for anything you have written in these discussions, and why should you? WP:V and WP:NOR apply to the article space, not talk page discussions.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice: I want to make it duly noted that my opening statements here point to specific parts of the article that are reliably referenced. Therefore, the citation of reliable sources is implied within my statements. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I really do want you to go hunting the sources. Your word is absolutely not good enough for me. Huggums537 (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What sources do you want? Seriously.

I already cited a dictionary that gave you an additional four definitions.
If you want a source for Drax not being in the first half hour of the film, the DVD of the film itself is good enough for a talk page comment. This is the copy I own, and the first shot in which Drax appears is at 27:36 -- if you want to wikilawyer over how 27.5 minutes is not "easily half an hour", kindly don't.
Rocket is first heard at 15:35 and is seen on-screen a few seconds later. Gamora is first seen at 17:44. The film itself, even including end credits, is 02h00m50s. So yeah, more than one eighth of the film is all about Quill. None of the other four characters you alluded to is named or even vaguely alluded to at any point before these times.
I am not going to go looking for a source that says the only five words spoken by Groot are "I", "am", "Groot", "we", and "are" -- if you are seriously questioning the accuracy of this claim, then you are clearly just trying to troll me, or you have not seen the film (and are just trolling me).

So ... yeah ... I didn't go looking, but this just came on on YouTube, and ... yeah ... I guess two can play at the game of posting two-months-too-late comments citing a satirical comedy shows as reliable sources of factual information. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR apply to the article space -- demanding sources for talk page comments is generally a fairly good sign of a wikilawyering troll.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Groot has a small vocabulary has no relevance since the character is well developed and has a proportional amount of screen time. His actions speak louder than his words do and his actions get a fair share of screen time and character development. Also, your misinterpretation of the DVD is a gross abuse of logic. According to your analysis, it implies that all of the characters must somehow simultaneously appear almost immediately in order for the film to be considered an ensemble. This is absurd. The unreasonable suggestion being that a character can't show up 16 minutes into a film, or 18 minutes, and almost certainly not 30 minutes into it, or else it can't be considered an ensemble film. Ridiculous. Huggums537 (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way -- as with the other page, the WP:BURDEN is on you. Demanding sources to justify removing questionable material is inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question: "What sources do you want?" I want the sources where you promise that; "There are plenty of reliable secondary sources backing up my assessment of the film". Those are the ones you offered to go hunting for; "do you really want me to go hunting for them?", and I say yes, please go hunting for them and thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What parts of my assessment do you want sources for? This evasiveness is extremely annoying and disruptive. I am not looking to make an addition to the article, so third-party reliable sources aren't technically a requirement -- any source-searching I do is at my leisure. Anyway, I have better things to do with my life than try to load up sources that I assume will state that the obvious facts that Drax doesn't appear until a quarter of the way through the film or that Groot only speaks five words only to find out that they do not: I had forgotten just how slow-loading these entertainment sources can be and how much data/battery they consume. If you have not seen the film, that's on you, and if you are not even going to tell me which of my "claims" you find questionable and so require sources that is ... unhelpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk about being evasive! I can't seem to get you to provide the sources you offered, and I couldn't find one single source to back up any of your claims myself. That's when I realized you were right about the request for these sources being too demanding due to the impossibility of finding these non-existent sources. I apologize because it's very improper of me to send you on a "wild goose chase" for sources (even though you offered to do so) about a very ambiguous claim that really nobody could ever verify. The proper thing to do with such frivolous claims is just ignore them since they can be no part of a real discussion that involves producing sources to verify arguments. So, you're off the hook about finding sources for ambiguous claims. However, I do want to make a note that this will be the second time you have extended a shallow offer to me where the intended results were substantially different than the offer that was made. I'm starting to see a pattern develop here... Huggums537 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's be clear -- I don't need any reliable sources to make a talk page comment about possibly removing something (apparently an unsourced detail) from the article. You are the one who needs reliable sources. If you have not seen this film, then you have not checked the only "reliable source" currently cited for the unattributed factual claim (appearing in the lead but not the body, mind you) that the film features an ensemble cast. If you have seen the film, then you are engaged in blatant trolling by demanding sources for the BLUE claims (again -- made on the article talk page) that (1) Drax doesn't appear until about 30 minutes in, (2) Rocket, Groot and Gamora don't appear until more than 15 minutes in, and (3) Groot only utters five unique words (of which one is a conjugation of another one, and one is the plural form of another one, so if we don't include those then it is only three words) that you are already know 100% accurate to the released version of the film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out again that it doesn't matter how small Groot's vocabulary is if he's getting a fair share of character development and screen time. As said before, it is beyond unreasonable to expect all of the characters to simultaneously appear almost immediately in the film for it to be considered an ensemble. Huggums537 (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot you provided the Wiktionary source above. So, I guess you're selective about which sources you'll provide? These sources, I'll be happy to provide, but those I don't have to? Seems inconsistent to me... BTW, I let you off the hook. If you don't want to prove your arguments, that's up to you. I've already provided all of the award sources, the definition, plus the definition source that you provided for me. I think I've held up my end of the burden pretty good so far. Huggums537 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

How are you not getting this? The WP:BURDEN is on you to come up with sources for a claim you want to be included in the article. The film itself is not a reliable source for including the claims that Groot has only two distinct lines and that Drax doesn't appear until half an hour in in the article itself, but I am not arguing for these claims to be added to the article, so I don't need a reliable source. You are clearly trolling now anyway. You will be blocked soon enough if you keep it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop calling me a troll and threatening me. You have been attempting to provoke me with these trolling accusations all up and down this page. Since I have remained focused on the topic and the provocation hasn't worked, you've now escalated to making threats to have me blocked. That won't provoke me either, so please just stop. If you can't have a discussion without injecting the troll insult into every other comment, then I don't know what to tell you. Huggums537 (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

And if you can't have a discussion without making off-topic, counter-policy "requests" that I jump through an endless number of hoops, which you won't even specify what those hoops are, for no purpose other than your personal amusement, then I don't want anything more to do with you. Call it what you want, but this "discussion" has been going exactly nowhere since the beginning, and the reason for that is not me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: I don't know about this. Yes, it is a valid source for the claim that its author says that each member of the central cast steals every scene they are in, but it also very clearly uses the phrase "ensemble cast" to refer only to the core players -- it's difficult to read each member of the ensemble cast steals every scene they are in as referring to Hounsou, or (a bit more debatably) Reilly. Also, you are (strictly speaking) wrong to say the source uses the word twice in the same way we do -- in the second instance "it" clearly refers to the film itself rather than the cast. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

For convenience, I notify the reader that there are two instances of the term, "ensemble" in the source. This is to make sure that both are seen because it illustrates how the term is a standard term used to apply to other areas besides casting alone. There's nothing that prevents me from providing more than the bare minimum of what is required for a source. I mean just because the only thing I need is a casting source doesn't mean I can't find a source that has a casting reference AND a reference to the film itself on top of it, right? Heck, if I had it my way, I'd have a source that mentioned "ensemble" five times! Although I do see your point that maybe only one of those terms specifically applies to the cast. On another note, I've been trying really hard to get off to a new start on this page. We had a "bunch of bad blood" between us on those other pages and I'm trying to make the best of it here. In light of that, I've been focusing on productive work and I found this source, which has the following quote from someone who worked on the project: "Guardians of the Galaxy was an amazing show to be part of, there's been a real buzz and excitement around it since we began and having seen the finished film, we were all really thrilled with how it turned out. Having worked a lot on Groot and Rocket, it was great to see two fully CG main characters perfectly hold their own amongst an incredible (live action) ensemble cast, and ultimately steal the show!". I found these sources also:[[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]]. So, as you can see, there is no shortage of sources to choose from. Huggums537 (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: I think you didn't understand my edit that you reverted. The source does not mention Reilly or Hounsou. On top of that, all of the information you referred to -- unlike "ensemble cast" -- appears in the body of the article, so does not need an independent source in the lead. The only reason I asked you to add a source was because "ensemble cast" is not verified anywhere else in the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with adding sources in the lead if that source contains extra information (not found in the body) to support it. It should be considered a good thing that the source also happens to contain information that supports some other information in the body. Additional sources for the content should be appreciated. Huggums537 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The source added to the lead is now in the body. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Favre1fan93. This is a great solution. Huggums537 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving the source to the body addresses both of the concerns hijiri had at the same time, effectively killing two birds with one stone. It removes the "independent source in the lead" and solves the problem that, ""ensemble cast" is not verified anywhere else in the article". Huggums537 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, once again I think we are done here, more because I'm sick of this discussion than because Favre's solution actually is "a great solution". The article still makes a factual claim based on one reviewer's opinion, rather than attributing it to said reviewer, and the citation is attached to a sentence about the announcement of Bradley Cooper as being cast to voice Rocket -- something not mentioned in the source -- rather than specifically a sentence about the film having an ensemble cast.

But I need to point out to User:Huggums537 that There's nothing wrong with adding sources in the lead if that source contains extra information (not found in the body) to support it. is contrary to WP:LEDE's Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Huggums, it seems you still don't understand what my problem was: I wasn't saying that including citations in the lead was a problem in itself, which was the implication of your both of the concerns hijiri had at the same time, effectively killing two birds with one stone -- only the second bird you list was actually a concern I had; yes, I don't like the prospect of having a lone citation in the lead for a single peripheral detail, but that's just a cosmetic issue and it wasn't what I was talking about above.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The source Favre inserted does not need to mention "Marvel announced that Bradley Cooper would voice Rocket" because there is an existing source which already mentions it. So, it's clear that the source Favre added is intended for the "ensemble cast" part of the sentence. The fact that the source and the term being sourced are both at the end of the sentence is purely coincidental. Huggums537 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

With reference to the snide "nice try" in the above comment's edit summary: kindly drop it and get over yourself. I am entitled to my opinion that In August 2013, Marvel announced that Bradley Cooper would voice Rocket,[38] joining the ensemble cast.[127] is a poorly constructed sentence and that the use of "ensemble" here is awkward and POINTy, and would be redundant if the far superior description The film features an ensemble cast. were added at the top of the "Cast" section. Think about it -- why is the main feature of the lead's description of the cast supported by a statement in the "Filming" section rather than the "Cast" section? Technically, Marvel's announcement of the casting of Cooper isn't even related to "Filming" per se (Rocket is entirely CGI, and Cooper's involvement in the film was mainly as a voice actor; the sentence is included where it is for chronological rather than thematic reasons). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I honestly couldn't disagree with you or agree with you either. Perhaps you should consider opening a new thread on the issue since this section is meant for discussion about this being an "ensemble film". Huggums537 (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved with this discussion, but I agree with Hijiri that my solution isn't the best. Can we remove that and just use from the reception section "Justin Lowe of The Hollywood Reporter also praised the film's look, and felt "A well-matched ensemble..."" as the necessary sourced content? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, I wouldn't mind that since the pre-existing source before I added mine is reliable enough to say that this is an ensemble film in a generalised way: "A well-matched ensemble...". However, my source has the added vital benefit that it supports the term "ensemble cast" in a much more specific way. I'm not really sure what changed your mind about using my source, but I posted a dozen other sources that also support the term featured in the lead. You seem to be very knowledgeable about these things. Do you have any suggestions on which one would be best to use and the best way to implement it to the article? Heck, maybe even Hijiri 88 would like to chime in on which source he likes the best. I actually like his choices when it comes to sources, but you seem to have a better sense for placement within articles to me, and I would prefer your judgement on that part of it. Thank you very much for your time. (Went ahead and reverted to version without source until we figure this out) Huggums537 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)