This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Furthermore, the Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) page has significantly more detail than what's provided on the comic book character's "in film" section. There we get a simple overview of the character's plot line, and instead of adding more to that subsection, we could trim it and directed readers to this page instead. A dedicated Thanos-MCU page allows Wikipedia to expand on his behind the scenes development, character arc, reception, cultural impact, and more. It's one thing to say the Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article needs more work (an argument I might even agree with) but to say it's not necessary because it already exists is erroneous. Every MCU character has a comic book equivalent, but the MCU's rendition of the character unique and should get the attention and detail it deserves. If this Thanos' page shouldn't be on Wikipedia, than neither should the Tony Stark page, the Erik Selvig page, and the countless other MCU character pages that are either in draft form or already published.
The aforementioned was already detailed on the Help Desk for creating articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#17%3A53%3A58%2C_16_January_2020_review_of_submission_by_Delfino319). One user already has agreed with my note (I agree with Delfino319 - with the character having different arcs depending on the media, it's too much to keep straight in one article, and warrants a fork. Courtesy ping to David.moreno72 as the declining editor. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)) Similarly, Jéské Couriano posted on my talk page in reference to my attempts to get this page approved, and he also agrees with my assertion that MCU Thanos should have his own page.
Sorry for the lengthy post here of all places, I just wasn't sure how else to state my case. If you believe this Thanos page needs more fleshing out just let me know and I'll add more depth to this article. Also if anyone's capable of getting a picture of the character in here it'd be much obliged (my Wikiedpia prowess is not the best ever, as I'm sure you noticed). Thanks for your time and help! Delfino319 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Delfino319: As far as I know, copyrighted pictures are not allowed on drafts, and I doubt there is a picture of MCU Thanos that isn't copyrighted. As long as necessity goes, this article may be necessary but your reasoning is flawed. Both Erik Selvig and Trevor Slattery exist as MCU articles because they were invented for the screen –note Phil Coulson as well–. Its comparison to characters like Tony Stark and Thor is also flawed, given that those two have made countless appearances and starred in three films each, the latter with a fourth film on the way. Thanos major appearances in the MCU amount to just two, Infinity War and less so Endgame. You might be right that this is an article we need, but you need a better argument to support it and convince the unconvinced. El Millo (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this article to the article space, based on the reception at Talk:Thanos#Thanos MCU main article? when this article was proposed. If the article isn't warranted, it should be put through the AfD process. I don't feel that it should be held back from the main article space on a feeling. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the information in the currently citation-free "fictional character biography" is taken straight from the plot and dialogue of the MCU Films. Couldn't we cite the films themselves as the source? If so how is this done? Thanks, and stay safe I quarantine Delfino319 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently some disagreements regarding calling Thanos the "primary antagonist" of Infinity War and Endgame. User:Lutesque appears to feel pretty strongly about removing that term, and despite my attempts to discuss this civilly to determine a consensus, this user continues to edit war despite correction from myself and User:IronManCap to avoid this kind of behavior. WP: ANTAGONIST applies to film casts. My argument here is that Thanos is the antagonist of the films based on definitions, he is the "chief foe" of the protagonists, the Avengers, Guardians, etc. Wanted to gather some other thoughts regarding this so that we can come to an overall consensus. Thank you.
Bloodyboppa (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP: ANTAGONIST and WP: PROTAGONIST exist for a reason. Can it be often inconsistent and arbitrary with its usage here on Wikipedia? Sure, but it should still be applied, regardless of the medium these characters belong to. If we go down this route then it all devolves into a game of users cherry picking what characters they wish to describe with said labeling and what characters they don't. Thanos should not get special treatment just because you said so. If you're so insistent about the usage of this terminology, then, for consistency's sake, should you or I or IronManCap just go forward with applying it to ALL of the MCU character articles, as well as any Marvel character, hero or villain regardless, with an MCU incarnation? Loki, Iron Man, Vulture, Star-Lord? The list goes on. And what's stopping anyone else from engaging in this as well.
Not sure if this is intruding or not, my apologies if so. I had something to add, but in the Accolades table, what is the intended order of the Accolades table? By year is clear, but is the Award column intended to be sorted alphabetically or chronologically? I was going to sort 2018 alphabetically (which seems to be how the following years went, but it occurred to me that it might be going chronological by when awarded within the year. Regardless, the "Los Angeles Online Film Critics Society" should go up into 2018. (The renamed "Hollywood Critics Association Awards" was also dated November 2019). -2pou (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it but I guess we should decide how the awards should be organized in terms of year. Is it the date of the ceremony or the year the awards are for? For example the winners are announced in 2020 but the awards are for 2019 movies. -- Zoo (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I would lean towards date of the ceremony since if the award was won, it happened on the date of the ceremony/announcement. From the Featured Lists, List of awards and nominations received by James Cameron has an efn note in the year column saying "Indicates the year of ceremony." Adding this note might help here as well. -2pou (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do is go by the award year. For instance 2019 Xxxxxxx Awards would be under 2019 even if the winners are announced in 2020 -- Zoo (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only leaned the other way, but no strong opinion here. (An efn would still help just worded the opposite.) That's fine, but it still isn't clear how the third column is to be sorted by default. There are still a couple moves depending on which is preferred. The Saturn Awards is tricky that year for sorting by year of release since it covered 10 mo. in 2018 and 7 mo. in 2019. Perhaps use 2018–19? -2pou (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it more, year of the ceremony is what works best like you mentioned. Many say 20xx Awards, and the rest tend to be XX annual Awards. So for the latter we just have to look at the ceremony date.
Saturn Awards is for Infinity War so it's correct where it's placed. Everything is in ceremony order in terms of each movie now -- Zoo (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to this but agreed about using ceremony date, seems to be standard practice and verifiable. Have added a caption and the scope header things which are necessary for data tables per MOS:DTAB without changing the layout. How about changing the layout to be consistent with the MCU films and series, could still have year instead of full date, and work column after year column? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does the category actually apply to this page? Or does adapting Thanos qualify? Most or all of the other characters in the category are original characters created by him. -- Zoo (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, exactly because it is an adaptation of an existing character. Plus, Joss Whedon only wrote one line for the character in total, plus the "head movement" from the first film's post-credits. It wouldn't be genuine to call it a Joss Wheadon creation. —El Millo (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Overall: @ZooBlazer: Good article but i think it would be better to say that the system helped create the look rather than flatly saying that this new system created his look. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that we update the infobox image as the current one was overly brightened by the orignal source. If we decide to change it, here are some options:
I updated it. It's taking its sweet time to update in the infobox, but if you click on the image, the file page has the updated version. Does anyone think it needs slightly brightened, or is it good? -- ZooBlazertalk01:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that somewhere in the article it should mention that Thanos is about the same size as the Hulk. Right now, one could read the entire article and never realize that Thanos was not a regular human-sized character. BD2412T21:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 I'm late to this, but I'm not entirely sure it's important enough to be added. However, if others disagree, it appears Thanos is 8'3", while Hulk is/was 8'2". (Source) -- ZooBlazertalk07:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per request at WT:FAC, some comments on the article, reviewing it with an eye to the FAC criteria, as if it were at FAC:
Per WP:WAF, fictional details should be covered in summary style and supported by independent sourcing where possible that demonstrates the notability of the details covered. The "Fictional Character Biography" is currently 1700 words long, which seems to be extremely excessive for a character that ultimately is only a major character of two films, and focuses on minutiae that are not important for a lay reader (for example, giving the fictional universe numbering system.) This isn't helped by the pretty arbitrary subheadings that seem excessive in number and focus on minor details.
Major recommendations: cut as many character names as you can to keep the focus on the major details (is his ship's name that important? Characters that are just mooks and heavies like Corvus or Ebony Maw? Do we need to know about the dwarves that forged the gauntlet?)
It also skimps on details for stuff that is important, for example explaining and wikilinking the Infinity Stones in the actual prose and telling us why they are important.
Likewise considering the alternate versions of Thanos are from single episodes and the like, the summaries should really just be tighter.
In the concept and creation section, the prose could use a focus on stuff that actually says something, if that makes sense. For example, you have this section: espite leading the cast in screen time in Infinity War[41] and being considered the main character of the film by many, Thanos had a secondary role in Avengers: Endgame (2019). McFeely explained "we had to give ourselves permission to backseat the villain [...] You're rolling around in the loss and the time heist, and you think it's sort of Avengers against nature".[42] Joe Russo stated that after Thanos was successful in Infinity War, he is now "done. He did it. He's retired".[43] Since at the end of Infinity War Thanos had acquired the enormously powerful Infinity Stones, Markus and McFeely had difficulty deciding how to include him in the plot of Endgame until executive producer Trinh Tran suggested that they kill Thanos in the film's first act.[44] Markus explained that the character's early death "reinforced Thanos' agenda. He was done ... it was like, 'If I've got to die, I can die now'".[44] There's a lot of direct quotes that aren't really servicing the point of the article (they make things less clear or diffuse, rather than quickly encapsulating a point.) Especially since readers aren't necessarily going to be familiar with the movies beyond the points you've brought up in the prose before, stuff like mentioning the time heist (which isn't really expressed in that way earlier in the article) is unhelpful to more confusing. Where possible, focus on whether a quote is actually the best way to deliver the information rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice (MOS:QUOTE.)
The reception section feels a little scattershot, with the cultural references bit just seeming like a renamed trivia section, and it feels a bit thin. If this character has been called one of the greatest villains in recent pop culture, it feels like there should be more here.
Per [1], I don't think Screen Rant really qualifies as a high-quality reliable source for FAC standards.
A quick look at Google Scholar suggests there's a lot more potential sources that could be incorporated into the article for broadness coverage. For example, there's a SIGGRAPH paper on Thanos' character animation, various academicpapers offering a more scholarly critical analysis beyond pop reception of the character, etc. EBSCO and JSTOR offer up more leads.
@David Fuchs Thank you for your comments. I'll definitely work on incorporating changes once my free time clears up more soon.
Just one comment regarding the reliability of Screen Rant. Per the page you linked, it says There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. As this is an entertainment related article, shouldn't it be fine? -- ZooBlazertalk15:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Featured Article criteria specify that claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources, emphasis mine. Just being a marginally reliable source doesn't mean it meets FA standards, which are higher than just "reliable source yes/no". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk16:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, articles on things such as movies and comics characters tend to run away with themselves due to fan exuberance. Combine the two, and look out! – AndyFielding (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me see if I've got this straight: Before Thanos realized he could collect the Infinity Stones and instantly eliminate half the life in the universe, he set out visiting one planet at a time, half-decimating each one.
Now, I'm the first to agree, the Stones route was much, much more expedient—but really? A planet at a time? Considering there are about a billion stars in your average galaxy, and about two trillion galaxies in the known universe, how could Mr. T. imagine he could make the slightest dent manually? Was he severely math-challenged? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? It seems like a significant character trait. – AndyFielding (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Looks to be taken care of. -2pou (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- other problem
@ZooBlazer: Good article but i think it would be better to say that the system helped create the look rather than flatly saying that this new system created his look. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
