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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Most of the opposition is based on TWODABS; no need for a dab page. Has anyone considered simply Thor (cinematic character) as the title of this article? (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) → Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe character) – The current title is ambiguous with Thor (film) which is also something from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Per WP:INCDAB and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Character articles, the correct way to disambiguate would be to add "character". The current title should redirect to Thor (disambiguation). Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, largely per WP:TWODABS. The disambiguation function is already adequately served by the hatnote. I would not be opposed to moving this title to Thor Odinson (Marvel Cinematic Universe), as that really is his canon equivalent of a surname. bd2412 T 16:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point to what exactly in WP:TWODABS you are referring to? I'm not sure I see what you are referring to there. --Gonnym (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)" Here, there are only two possibilities, the character and the film. Because we can't have a disambiguation page at the title "Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" per WP:INCOMPDAB, that title would then point to Thor (disambiguation), which would be less helpful to readers than the hatnote is now. bd2412 T 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so you were referring to that, but this page isn't the primary topic as can be seen by the fact that it has disambiguation and per WP:INCDAB When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page. It's too soon to check page views comparisons for this page, but given the fact that the first film gets more page views then the comic character article (as can be seen here), I'd even say that if we go with a primary (which again, I'm not in favor as a disambiguation cannot be a primary) then the film would still be it. --Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If these were unrelated topics pageviews might matter, but they are not. The film, Thor, is a subtopic of the MCU character, Thor. If the character didn't exist, then the film could not exist, although it would have been possible to have Thor appear in the Avengers without having his own origin story film. This is comparable to George Washington in the American Revolution - if the article on this aspect of the person's life was the most-viewed, we still wouldn't make it the primary topic of George Washington, or even consider moving George Washington to a different title to accommodate any perceived ambiguity. Although the film and character in this case are fictional, the character is still the thing the film is about. bd2412 T 20:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not nearly the same situation. #1 the article isn't titled George Washington (American Revolution) and George Washington doesn't have any disambiguation (= primary topic) - which is unlike this article which does have disambiguation, hence not being a primary topic of anything. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • George Washington (disambiguation) does exist, however. The character, Thor, is the primary topic of the phrase Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) in the same way that the President, George Washington, is the primary topic of the phrase George Washington. Furthermore, the function of disambiguating the topics is already accomplished in the hatnote. There is no reason to send readers to a completely different disambiguation page to find the exact same link to the film. This gives no additional help to readers searching for the film, since they can already find it on the article proposed to be moved, while inconveniencing readers who are, in fact, looking for the character. bd2412 T 17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I get where this request is coming from, but WP:TWODABS applies here. Calidum 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to support this, as per WP:INCDAB and WP:PRECISE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IJBall:, what are your thoughts on the alternative proposal to move this to Thor Odinson (Marvel Cinematic Universe)? bd2412 T 23:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an OK alternative proposal... My main issue with it is that I don't think "Thor Odinson" is the WP:COMMONNAME (which is Favre1fan93's point below). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if we were do a count, then names like "Steve Rogers" aren't common either, since almost always he's referred to as some variation of "Steve", "Captain Rogers", "Cap", "Captain America", etc. So its not really about COMMONNAME, but more about WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:PRECISION, and WP:NATURAL. -- Netoholic @ 02:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Gonnym and IJBall. Also, I don't think "Thor Odinson (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" is really an option, because while true, "Thor" is still the character's WP:COMMONNAME. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Thor is the common name, which why this is the current title of the article. However, since we are talking about moving it, I would consider adding "Odinson" to be a better solution than adding "character". None of the titles on other MCU characters have "character" in the title, but they do have the character surname. bd2412 T 02:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE, WP:TWODABS, and WP:INUNIVERSE. Thor (film) is a real-world entity (with a cast, director, premiere date, etc) and is not part of the fictional Marvel Cinematic Universe. The only Thor that is within that fictional universe is Thor Odinson. Any confusion is handled adequately by the hatnote, and we don't need to be pedantic. -- Netoholic @ 02:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thor, the film, is not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe fictional universe, but he is part of the actual real-world entity movie franchise which is called the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which the fictional character article disambiguation also uses. The fictional universe isn't called MCU, it is in-fact called "Earth-199999". So if we were to use this for the character it would be Thor (Earth-199999). --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's just out of left-field. Sources regarding this topic do not use Earth-2123456 or whatever. The fictional universe is called Marvel Cinematic Universe (you call tell its right from the word "Universe" in it, not "Franchise" or "Film Series". -- Netoholic @ 10:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Interestingly, the MCU universe is technically classed as Earth-199999", "The Marvel Cinematic Universe is itself just one universe among hundreds of thousands that make up the Marvel multiverse. It's designated Earth-199999", several reference in the book Make Ours Marvel: Media Convergence and a Comics Universe (I'm sure there are more, didn't need to search long for these as these were first page results). Not every franchise needs to be called "X franchise", if the franchise has a unique name then there is no need for it. Also, we do not need to search too far, Marvel Cinematic Universe first sentence says this: The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is an American media franchise and shared universe - which means it is both. Feel free to remove the "franchise" part and see if it sticks. --Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • . Again, pedantic. No one has expressed actual confusion related to the naming of this article. -- Netoholic @ 11:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's so great having a discussion with an editor who places an argument which turns out to be incorrect and instead of admitting it was incorrect, resolves to commenting on the editor. Lovely. Also, no need for "actual confusion" as we cannot test that with the current tools Wikipedia has, all we can is turn to our guidelines which clearly say that if it the title is ambiguous, it should not be, which has been proven. Anyways, this specific sub-discussion has seem to run its course. --Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Its not incorrect. You go searching for a specific phrase and you will absolutely find a small minority of sources which reference it. Its called "selection bias" or "confirmation bias" and its a misued tactic in RM discussions all the time. Use the sources of this article, or survey a broad selection of sources to get a general impression on how its handled. Dont plug in keywords and come back with 2-3 links which you think makes your case a "slam dunk". The MCU shared universe meaning came first, and was adopted as a shorthand to describe the collection of films. The Earth-199999 designation came long after to make the MCU "fit" into established comics multiverse numbering - but its a point of trivia, not a common way to describe the fictional universe. Lastly, "pedantic" was a comment on the arguments made, not the editor - I used the same word in my original vote, not directed at anyone in particular, just the tendency of to be too unnecessarily strict and enraptured by the minutae of our guidelines rather than actually benefiting readers and editors working with this article. -- Netoholic @ 12:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral comment There is also Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe) which you lot might want to look at after to decide if that is appropriate as it is a similar situation to this. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as unnecessary. It is consistent with how "(comics)" disambiguation terms are used. I'm sure there are a number of comic book characters whose article titles need to be disambiguated and also have their own specific comic book lines, e.g., Black Panther (comics), Tick (comics), and Spawn (comics). We don't get these characters mixed up with their comic book lines of the same name. We don't need to get more detailed here for similar reasons. EDIT: We even have Thor (Marvel Comics) to refer to the figure without needing "character". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:TWODABS. In the unlikely scenario a user somehow gets here but wants the film, the hatnote will fix the problem. (And per Netholic, unless the MCU gets really meta, the current title is reasonably precise anyway - Thor-the-film/documentary is probably not an in-universe part of the MCU.) SnowFire (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think moving it to Thor Odinson (Marvel Cinematic Universe) instead would fix the problem better as someone propossed above.★Trekker (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.