Talk:Iron Man in film

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Iron Man in other media.

Film: Comic book / American

	Film portal This redirect 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 articles
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

This article was nominated for deletion review on 15 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was overturn to no consensus.

This article was nominated for merging with Iron Man in other media on January 18, 2014. The result of the discussion was Merge.

Orphaned references in Iron Man franchise

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Iron Man franchise's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "trilogy":

From Robert Downey, Jr.: Quint (February 9, 2007). "Quint visits the IRON MAN production offices! Art! Favreau speaks about sequels (?!?), casting and more!!!". AICN. Retrieved February 10, 2007.
From Iron Man (film): Quint (2007-02-09). "Quint visits the IRON MAN production offices! Art! Favreau speaks about sequels (?!?), casting and more!!!". Ain't It Cool News. Retrieved 2007-02-10.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

How did you come to the conclusion this edit was a merge edit rather than an unexplained removal of content? For starters, only two of the video games were removed, as opposed to all of them, and the editor made no content additions relating to video games to the merge to article. As per merge, any selective merging should meet consensus before being done. I currently don't really see how it could be interpreted as a merge edit since no merging was done, and even if it were a merge edit, hasn't received consensus, and thus should not be implemented in which I will restore it until the consensus as to how that section will be merged. Agree? - For clarity sake, I am not opposed to the merge, but that edit was simply a removal of content, not a merge. Mkdw ^talk 00:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was closed as a merge to Iron Man in other media, so to dismiss that decision is a direct contravention of the AfD discussion. An editor has initiated a review of the decision, but it stands unless it is overturned. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this has nothing to do with challenging the AFD result. I am not dismissing it, and I am asking you why, you saw the revert as a challenge to the AFD or the merge. The edit was a removal of content and NOT a merge edit. Mkdw ^talk 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the AfD is to merge this article into Iron man in other Media, so video game content shouldn't be getting added to the article, at least not until the AfD review is concluded. There is no need to make a mountain out of mole hill. If the AfD outcome is overturned you can start developing the article within a few days; if the decision stands and teh merge goes ahead, it would be helpful if editors didn't add a load more content that has to then be merged into the other article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betty, I'm not "making a mountain out of a mole hill" here and I'm not challenging the AFD. These are two assumptions that the conversation doesn't need added when it's not the case. I'm very calmly trying to reach an understanding to avoid an edit war. No hard feelings, stress or anything. I assure you. I think I see the problem here, and it's a silly miscommunication is all. Based upon your last reply, did you take this edit, which was the first of my edits you reverted, as me adding content after the AFD result? Mkdw ^talk 00:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of an AfD review is to review the outcome of the original debate, but editors' comments only make sense in terms of how the article was when it was being discussed. By adding the video games content (when the article in its original form was conceived as a film series article) you fundamentally alter the whole scope of the article and the context of the original discussion, which complicates a review the original decision. If you would like to extend the scope of the article then put that forward at DRV as a potential solution. The article doesn't need to be extended right this minute, so give a it a few days, establish a clear scop for the article if it is retained and then develop it. It seems to me everyone has a different idea about what to do with this article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) sigh... This is a comparison between the current version in which you removed the video game sections, and the version that User:J04n reviewed at the time of the AFD result. I am not sure why you think I've been adding new video game content after the AFD result when it was already there. My recent was a revert, not an addition of new content. I've been trying to explain this but I am not sure why my initial edit summary, or the other comparisons about User:TreCoolGuy's unexplained removal of content which wasn't merging anything, or my original statement has not been clear. I basically agree with everything you are saying that the article should remain intact as it was at the time of the AFD for a fair DRV. But you keep undoing my restores... Mkdw ^talk 01:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw, I think it would be best for this article to have a filmic scope. There is precedent for it, and I think that we can have more coverage connecting films than connecting other media like video games. I started a draft at User:Erik/Iron Man in film, but I'd like to add more prose in terms of critics comparing both films (and soon all three films), as well as the comparative box office performances. Not to mention including what's available from that book Fantasy Film Post 9/11 about the two Iron Man films so far. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What I disagree about is Betty Logan and TreCoolGuy removing content that was there at the time of the AFD close with out merging it when the result was merge OR that the content should be there for a fair DRV because it was there at the time of the AFD close decision... Mkdw ^talk 01:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content that you added does not reflect the version of the article that was under discussion. The debate had pretty much concluded by the time you added the content. The consensus at the AfD was in relation to a film series article, not a franchise article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you've introduced the same problem you're arguing I have done. The whole DRV up until this point has been referencing an article and decision made that had the video game content. Now well into that discussion where several people have commented, you've changed the fundamental article. Mkdw ^talk 01:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has got messy, but it is a review not a fresh AfD. When the reviewer closes the review, then it helps if they can see the version the original comments refer to. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for my comment and the closer's decision which is what we're reviewing... There's nothing I can do about it at this point since you're reverting my restores at point blank. I understand your subsequent argument, but I really disliked the fact that you started off saying I was adding new content after the AFD was closed, not true, that I was dismissing the merge outcome, also not true because I was restoring NOT adding new content, and then you cited my April 18th restore and made it look like I was adding "new video content" to the article as you pointed out in the DRV, also not true. Mkdw ^talk 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

The editorial question now that the decision is no consensus is do we want to make this Iron Man in film or an article about the franchise as a whole? Mkdw ^talk 06:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two approaches. This can be moved to Iron Man in film and cover the franchise's film presence, or it can be turned into a general franchise article with Iron Man in other media being turned into a List of Iron Man media. The problem with Iron Man in other media is that it's a hybrid of an article and a list, so you well end up with a huge overlap unless you develop them in tandem. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I'm in favour of moving it to Iron Man in film. Mkdw ^talk 07:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be enough interest to at least request a move to Iron Man in film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with making the move. Let's leave the other media elements at Iron Man in other media in the meantime. I have something in the works here: User:Erik/Iron Man in film. Am thinking of a way to structure all his filmic appearances. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man (franchise) → Iron Man in film – To broaden the scope of the article, which would differentiate it from Marvel Cinematic Universe and thus alleviate any content fork concerns. TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man franchise. The initial article, while nebulously titled, was intended to be a film-series article, and with Iron Man 3 coming out soon, the time is ripe to have an article about Iron Man in film that encompasses the feature and direct-to-video productions. (I think a threshold of three feature films is appropriate for such creation such it becomes a stronger destination for aggregated content.) Film critics have compared Iron Man 2 to the first film, and no doubt they will compare the third film to its predecessors. We can mine for these specific comments. In addition, such films' box office performances have also been compared, and we can focus on that scope of detail. Lastly, I found an academic source, the book Fantasy Film Post 9/11, that has a chapter comparing the first two Iron Man feature films, which further demonstrates that such a filmic scope about the character is valid. (EDIT: I also think that there are greater comparisons made between the films than between other media, such as video games, based on other film series and in-film articles.) Redundancy is expected with some overlap with Marvel Cinematic Universe, but this article will have a more specific focus on the particular strand of films in the MCU (as well as the DTV films). Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still redundant to Iron Man in other media though. I think we got enough reasons why it wouldn't be redundant to Marvel Cinematic Universe. It can be the main article to focus on the next sequel that the Iron Man articles instead it being on the Iron Man article before that. Among other reasons that we haven't got around to doing yet. In short it may not be useful now but it can be useful for the future when the film series is still growing. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not if we split all the films from Iron Man in other media to Iron Man in film. Iron Man in other media, would basically include the character's portrayal in all other forms of media except film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah I already established that from Erik, Triiiple Threat. I don't have a problem with a split, personally. As long as that is a part of you're plans. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If we are to keep this article. This is the best idea I can think of. I can see why there was no consensus on it once the deletion page. It's not really necessary to divide the article but the main reason why there is pro over con on this is because it can be more useful in the future with future projects (no doubt) on the way. This can be the main establishment for where they can go before becoming a article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Iron Man (film franchise) or as suggested. This is not about the Iron Man franchise, so the title is misleading. It is missing all the other franchise properties. I suggest the current title be redirected to Iron Man in other media -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can make sure that Iron Man franchise redirects to Iron Man in other media and fix related links, but we want to move the page history accordingly. It has been focused on Iron Man in film, and the intention is to continue that and refine the approach. Do you not agree that the topic should be Iron Man in film? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCF, we should use "(film series)" if it's just about a series of films, and "(franchise)" for mixed media franchise, so we shouldn't consider "(film franchise)". As this article is not about anything other than the films, it should be moved. Conditional to the plans to include other instances of Iron Man in films and in keeping with Batman in film, Superman in film, etc., I support a move to Iron Man in film, otherwise it should be moved to Iron Man (film series). --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man franchise, I'd say we had consensus to move anyway - what's it doing at Iron Man (franchise)? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Iron Man in film, on the assumption it will cover his entire film presence. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Franchise is too vague whereas Iron Man in film perfectly sums up the content of the article. Zarcadia (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A more natural title, better scope for an article, as per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment: I personally prefer Iron Man (film series) (although I know I will be in a minority on this). I feel that "X in film" should only be used when the franchise has been rebooted and such. This right now is just a film series and should be labeled as such. X in film only existed when the character would have more than one franchise in film. I think we need to stick to that. We still have X-Men (film series) when it's still appears as basically the same franchise. The only reason why Iron Man in film would be better is to talk about the crossovers. But that's truly a minor issue and not hardly important inclusion. We should totally focus on the main Iron Man films on something like this. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also consistent with the infobox. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are the direct-to-video films to consider too. I find the "in film" title general enough to have from the get-go because I find it more likely than not that a franchise will evolve or reboot and ultimately mean that the term "film series" may be questionable. Basically, it is a more permanent title that is free of any corporate or continuity constraints. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue to drop the infobox from such articles. They are just not designed for multiple films, and its use is forced. The "Cast" is covered in a table, and I would not be opposed to a "Crew" table either. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to introduce the animated Iron Man movies. Then yeah that is different. Although that's a topic that Iron Man in other media really is already is doing. The Iron Man animated movies (at least one of them) doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the films. I don't think that will stop it being a content fork at all but instead make it focus on a topic already better told and placed in Iron Man in other media. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I think we should focus on the film series. Because I think that is a notable topic that is deserved to be split more than focusing on all the films which the article is already doing. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I foresee is that the "Film" section at Iron Man in other media will not go away; it will mention that Iron Man has had stand-alone feature films, has crossed over into other feature films, and also has been in animated DTV films. Then we could list and link all these films. The same information would also appear at Iron Man in film but in greater detail. I think that if we only include feature films, we will be prompted with the question about why the other films are not at least mentioned, especially when considering the article's scope (if moved to "in film"). It is a way to accommodate with the permanence, IMO. We can play around with the content and structure to see how it comes out. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Like you said. It requires playing around with. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A film series article would be the same as this one, which is redundant to MCU. If we split all the films from Iron Man in other media, it would be unique to both MCU and Iron Man in other media.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained how it wouldn't be on the other discussion page but no matter...I see no problem with you're plans. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comparative coverage

I would like to identify film critics who have reviewed all three films and to string together their reviews in this article. For example, Richard Corliss of Time has done this: 1, 2, and 3. There's also Joe Neumaier: 1, 2, and 3. Claudia Puig: 1, 2, 3. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I have reverted some recent edits that introduced a paragraph copypasted from Iron Man (film), another from Iron Man 3, a non-free image with insufficient rationale, and a series of categories that only apply to certain films (and are on those films' pages), not this page. Let's discuss these changes here and why some may feel these are appropriate additions, instead of continuing an edit war. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page could definitely use some production information (including distributors if you wish). But it should not be directly copy and pasted from other articles and it all needs to be referenced. In fact the entire page might need to be rewritten to remove some of the promotional language (i.e. "all star"). The Avengers image served no purpose other than illustration. Also the categories should apply to entire article not aspects of it and we do not categories like "superhero films" when we have "iron man films". Same goes for the navboxes. This page does not specifically deal with the MCU, so the navbox is not necessary. Especially when that navbox already links to involved individual films and the MCU article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Iron Man in film

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Iron Man in film's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IM3ReleaseDate":

From Marvel Cinematic Universe: Ward, Kate (October 18, 2010). "'Iron Man 3' to come to theaters in 2013". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on September 3, 2012. Retrieved September 3, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From Iron Man 2: Ward, Kate (October 18, 2010). "Iron Man 3 to come to theaters in 2013". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on August 22, 2012. Retrieved August 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After more than a week open, no additional editors provided options, but consensus is clear to merge. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be merged into Iron Man in other media. All relevant info (ie not the cast table or reception section, as those can be found on individual pages or better yet, the Marvel Cinematic Universe page) can easily fit in the section on that page. Please note similar proposals occurring at Thor in film, Captain America in film and Hulk in film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The content used to be covered at Iron Man in other media and should never have been split out IMO. Iron Man in film survived the AfD because it's a notable topic, and I don't dispute that, but we have two relatively small articles (20-30k) and the content can easily be covered in the "other media" article. I would rather have one comprehensive article than two sparse articles and then readers can get all the information in one place. I'm not so familiar with the other articles so I will take a closer before commenting at the other merge proposals. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This page was never meant to be Iron Man in film it was supposed to be Iron Man trilogy just focussing it on the three films. I had no intent on turning it into a in film page. When I made the Iron Man trilogy page another user merged it in with Iron Man in film. If this page is merged I would like to make an Iron Man trilogy wiki page like I originally intended on doing. -- TreCoolGuy (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator's rationale is that the scope of the article can easily be housed elsewhere so an article with an even smaller scope can be too.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did prefer there being just a film series article with the trilogy at the time (not remembering there was a animated Iron Man movie before it)...but of course with MCU being considered a franchise of that own. It might not be that necessary unless we get information that isn't redundant to other source material. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's rationale.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.