Talk:Avengers: Infinity War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This movie follows Thor:Ragnarok

I added this info in the intro, but someone reverted the sentence. Infinity War is a sequel to Ragnarok, and this info should be included in the article. Otherwise viewers who may not have seen Ragnarok may have a hard time understanding the first scene in Infinity War. Please leave this info in the article. --Zojj tc 19:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No. We don't describe each MCU film as a sequel to the previously released MCU film. It could be described as a follow-up to any MCU film that mentioned an Infinity Stone. Unless they retroactively decide that one of them took place after it, like with The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that we don’t want to or need to list every previous movie as a prequel. But I still feel that the article should mention that the first scene occurs directly after Ragnarok ends. So that viewers who have not seen Ragnarok can see what movie to watch to make sense of the start of Infinity War. --Zojj tc 04:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Whilst previous movies in the series undoubtedly follow on from prior releases (e.g. Age of Ultron's reference to Captain America's and Falcon's pursuit of Bucky Barnes from The Winter Soldier, or Tony Stark talking about destroying his suits (Iron Man 3) during the events of Civil War) they have never *directly* followed on from a previous movie. Infinity War, however, is the first MCU movie to immediately follow up from a previous release (i.e. Thor: Ragnarok's post-credit) which indicates a definitive continuance of the latter's story. For this reason, I do feel that the Note provides added context and value to the article, and should be included in the Plot section. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There was a note at one point in the plot about this, but I don't know why it isn't there now or why whoever removed it, what the reasoning was. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, there was. It was removed here, back in July. I think re-inserting it, however, would be an acceptable compromise. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've readded it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I was the one who initially removed the note, and I believe it should be removed again. My reasoning: this plot summary is full of references to previous films that we do not explain, since that would take too much space and these are things that the film itself does not explain anyway. The allusion to Ragnarok is not the only instance of this here. Should we add notes explaining how the Reality Stone was given to the Collector, or how T'Challa became King of Wakanda, or how Strange came to be at the Sanctum? I think it gets a bit silly at that point. If there is a clear single prior film to reference, such as Age of Ultron picking up after the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D. in Winter Soldier, then I am all for that, but here we have just chosen one random film to reference when it should be an all or nothing situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

See my response above (10:25, 3 January 2019) for reasoning. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

An RFC has been made on this discussion point. Further edits to the article on this point until the RFC has been completed or interested parties participate in the discussion will be reported. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There is disagreement between users on whether an explanatory note is required within the article's Plot section and it looks likely to devolve into an edit war. Additional input is appreciated. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with adding the footnote. It's how we do it with a lot of these MCU movies. While we wouldn't want too many such footnotes, we can apply some common sense to prevent that slope from getting slippery. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: We do it for a lot of these movies when there is a clear preceding film to reference, but this film is full of characters and subplots that tie directly into preceding films or could do with the context of such an explanatory note, and just choosing one of them doesn't make sense. You say apply some common sense, well to me randomly choosing one spot in the article to do this is not common sense. Yes the film begins directly after the Ragnarok post-credits scene, but the note doesn't actually explore that context, it simply points the reader to an earlier plot summary where they can learn more about the events leading to this one. That is no different from any other part of the plot summary that could use such a note, which definitely makes this choice arbitrary. We also don't have the filmmakers clearing establishing the timeline of this film in relation to Ragnarok (in fact, they more often referred to Civil War and the film itself mentions the first Avengers prominently as well) which is what usually leads to us adding one of these notes. All around, this is not the same situation as "a lot of these MCU movies". - adamstom97 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

But the footnotes we use don't typically just reference another film. Rather, there is a clear tendency to have just one footnote that works to place the film chronologically in reference to others. Here's the breakdown:

• The Incredible Hulk (film), Iron Man 2, and Thor each have a note saying that the films' plots occurs simultaneously with each other, thus orienting the films' relative chronologies.
• Iron Man 3 has a note that mentions The Avengers to explain Stark's PTSD.
• Thor: The Dark World has two notes, one mentioning The Avengers and one mentioning Thor (neither of which work to orient the films' relative chronologies).
• Captain America: The Winter Soldier has a note mentioning The Avengers that orients the films' chronologies.
• Ant-Man (film) has two notes, one mentioning Avengers: Age of Ultron to orient the films' chronologies and Captain America: Civil War.
• Captain America: Civil War has one note mentioning Avengers: Age of Ultron to orient the films' chronologies.
• Doctor Strange (2016 film) has one note mentioning Thor: Ragnarok.
• Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 has one note mentioning Avengers: Infinity War seemingly to orient the films' chronologies.
• Spider-Man: Homecoming has two notes, one mentioning The Avengers and another Captain America: Civil War, both of which orient the films' chronologies.
• Thor: Ragnarok has one note that mentions Avengers: Age of Ultron to orient the films' chronologies
• Black Panther (film)) has one note that mentions Captain America: Civil War to orient the films' chronologies
• Ant-Man and the Wasp has two notes, one mentioning Captain America: Civil War to orient the films' chronologies and one mentioning Avengers: Infinity War
• Captain Marvel (film) has a note mentioning Avengers: Infinity War

Of the references that provide a time-orienting context, none of them "explore that context." Since most of these standalone notes are designed to provide a reference that lets the readers know when the film takes place in reference to another film, it seems like having this one footnote won't act as a slippery slope towards others, since we aren't just referencing events from previous movies, but rather using a reference to establish when this film takes place in comparison to another film. Thor: Ragnarok is the best choice to reference since it occurs immediately before this film, as is clear from its ending. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

But that is not what this note is doing—in no way does the current summary or note indicate where in relation to Ragnarok this film takes place. All it is doing is offering a link where more explanation can be found on what the "spaceship carrying the surviving Asgardians" is. We have done that before, for instance the Infinity War note at Captain Marvel, but in this context there is no clear reason to choose between one for Ragnarok and one, for example, for Doctor Strange at "the Sanctum Sanctorum in New York City". Also, if this was meant to indicate the time between films then we generally would include that based on discussion by the filmmakers, and that is not the case here. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall anything clearly indicating when Doctor Strange takes place compared to other films. I suspect that it's better to use Thor: Ragnarok as a reference because of its greater clarity on this issue.

It sounds like from what you're saying, as well as Argento's point, that a note can work as long as we reword it so that it more strongly indicates the relative chronology and doesn't imply that Thanos's attack on Xandar was shown in TR. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that would be better than what we currently have. Just as long as it is based on reliable sources and ideally discussion by the filmmakers. I haven't looked to see what is out there yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• The note doesn't work for me. As currently written, it implies that Thanos' attack on Xandar was shown in Ragnarok. It seems to me that if you remove the word "surviving" from the sentence, there's no need to have a note at all. That strikes me as the only part that a reader would see and think "Huh. I wonder what they survived." Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel that the current note and wording is fine. As pointed out by Aeusoes we have form within the MCU movie articles of including notes to provide context of continuity within the greater series, and whilst I appreciate that the attack on Xandar referenced at the start of the sentence isn't depicted in the movie mentioned in the note, the purpose of said note is to direct readers to the relevant article at which point they can find out what is (or isn't) included in the movie. For that reason, as mentioned above, I see no issue with the current wording. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 21:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify something, are you interpreting this sentence as saying "...intercept the spaceship carrying the surviving Asgardians.[See Thor: Ragnarok for when this interception happened]" or "...intercept the spaceship carrying the surviving Asgardians.[See Thor: Ragnarok for what they have survived]"? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It might be a bit of misdirection to imply to readers that something occurs in a movie and require them to read the plot summary of said movie to learn that it doesn't. To include a footnote that works best as a chronological orientation, we may need to also modify the sentence it's attached to. Maybe something like:

Having intercepted the spaceship carrying the surviving Asgardians,^{As depicted in the 2017 film Thor: Ragnarok.} Thanos and his lieutenants—Ebony Maw, Cull Obsidian, Proxima Midnight, and Corvus Glaive—subdue the passengers and reveal that Thanos has already acquired the Power Stone, one of the six Infinity Stones, from the planet Xandar. Thanos subdues Thor, overpowers Hulk, kills Loki, and extracts the Space Stone from the Tesseract.

That's just a stab at it. Feel free to offer your own ideas on how to reword things. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be cmpletely adverse to that wording, though I do think it reads a bit repititevly. I think something like the below might work a tad better:

Having intercepted the spaceship carrying the surviving Asgardians,^{As depicted in the 2017 film Thor: Ragnarok.} Thanos and his lieutenants—Ebony Maw, Cull Obsidian, Proxima Midnight, and Corvus Glaive—subdue the passengers and, having already acquired the Power Stone, one of the six Infinity Stones, from the planet Xandar, overpower Thor and the Hulk, kill Loki, and extract the Space Stone from the Tesseract.

That's what I'm thinking, at least. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is it so important to include a) the word surviving and b) the source of the power stone? Why not open with "Thanos and his lieutenants—Ebony Maw, Cull Obsidian, Proxima Midnight, and Corvus Glaive—intercept the Asgardian's spaceship. Thanos subdues Thor, overpowers Hulk, and kills Loki before taking the Space Stone, one of the six Infinity Stones, from them. He adds it to the Power Stone, which he already possesses. Hulk is teleported to Earth as Thanos departs with his lieutenants and destroys the ship." This is less wordy and doesn't require a note. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I do like your wording better, Argento. It would still be a good idea to have a footnote that orients the film chronologically, though. We could do: "Thanos and his lieutenants—Ebony Maw, Cull Obsidian, Proxima Midnight, and Corvus Glaive—intercept a spaceship fleeing the destruction of Asgard.^{As depicted in the 2017 film Thor: Ragnarok.} Thanos subdues..."

The pertinent bit of information that requires the note's presence is the Asgardian ship; without a note, there is no context to the existence of the ship, nor the fact that Thanos and co. have attacked it. I also feel that, given the plot of the movie is about Thanos retrieving the six Stones, not mentioning the fact that he is in possession of the first Stone already would be detrimental to the section overall. I must admit, when writing my proposed sentence I did feel a level of unease about including "one of the six Infinity Stones, from the planet Xandar" as it felt redundant. I would be perfectly happy omitting that part of the sentence and instead linking the text Power Stone to the Infinity Stones article. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You only feel this way because you know there is context for the ship. There's no context for why the stone's on Xandar, Where Thanos' soldiers came from, why there's a stone in a Tesseract, or dozens of other things featured in the film. I think identifying it as an Asgardian spaceship is sufficient context - it tells what it is and who it belongs to. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my last post, I am quite content to remove any reference to Xandar from the opening sentence as the relevant part is the fact that Thanos already possesses the Stone (not where it came from); with that in mind, we do not need to consider the context behind the Stone being on Xandar. I am unsure as to why this discussion has pivoted to focus on the use of the word "surviving,"–though I'm not particularly fussed if that exact word is included or not–as it doesn't relate to the usage of the note at all. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove the Xandar reference, and I support Argento's plan to remove both the "surviving" bit and the note. None of the other suggestions since I last commented work for me, there has just not been a suggestion where the note is justified. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be attempting to ignore the fact that we have precedence to include the note in order to place continuity with the greater series, as well as any other argument made which justifies the placement of the note. The existence of the Asgardian ship, which is from a different movie, needs context and this can only be provided by maintaining the note. Without said note, these objects and characters simply... exist. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is precedence, but no good suggestion has been made for using the note to establish continuity (neither the current version nor the previous suggestions here do this) so that precedence is irrelevant. As for giving context to the ship, the note does indeed do this. But this then takes us back to my original point: this plot summary is full of things that do not make sense unless you know about the other films, so if we only do it for one (Ragnarok) then we are being inconsistent and arbitrary. It would be silly to have a note for every other line pointing to more info, so it is better to just have none at all. This is also consistent with the film, since it does not go out of its way to explain things set-up by other films. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are wrong on both counts. There doesn't need to be a suggestion put forward as the current note already does a perfectly acceptable job of establishing continuity, and does so in a manner that is consistent with previous MVU movie articles; if it's acceptable on every other related article then there is no reason why it would not be acceptable here. Simply declaring the precedence irrelevant because you personally deem the current wording associated with the note "no good" does not change the fact that the note is required. Your second point, regarding providing context for every single piece of information mentioned in the Plot section that sources from a previous MCU movie, has also already been addressed by myself back at the start of the section. The comment you elected to ignore.

Now, since you've accepted that there is precedence for the note, I would argue that this RFC is complete and that the note should remain. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not quite how RfC's work. However, what is clear that both you and I have provided a firm justification for including a note that establishes continuity. I think I've adequately addressed Adam's concern about the arbitrariness of choosing a note based purely on narrative comprehension by highlighting that we only need one reference to a previous film to provide chronological continuity, which there is precedence for with other MCU films. We so far have indicated that there's justification for a note, though I'm not sure how much agreement we have on the wording of the note or the surrounding text. What do people feel about this:

Thanos and his lieutenants—Ebony Maw, Cull Obsidian, Proxima Midnight, and Corvus Glaive—intercept a spaceship fleeing the destruction of Asgard.^{As depicted in the 2017 film Thor: Ragnarok.} Thanos subdues Thor, overpowers the Hulk, and kills Loki before taking the Space Stone, one of the six Infinity Stones, from them. He adds it to the Power Stone, which he already possesses. Hulk is teleported to Earth as Thanos departs with his lieutenants and destroys the ship.

This is based primarily around Argento's wording, with the note providing the desired chronological continuity. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, that suggestion does not explain, in any way, how much time has passed between Ragnarok and this film. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. What do you think would be a good way to reword this so that we more clearly convey how much time has passed? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We could say something like Shortly after the destruction of Asgard,[as seen in Ragnarok] Thanos and his lieutenants ... intercept a spaceship carrying the surviving Asgardians. However, we don't actually know how much time has passed between the destruction of Asgard and the Ragnarok post-credits scene, or even between the post-credits scene and the start of this film for that matter. I am also concerned that this would be putting more emphasis on the Asgardians and the time since the destruction of Asgard than the film ever really does. But, this is the closest to actually addressing the issue that you guys have wanted to here, since it makes some attempt at showing the relative continuity. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it actually matters that we detail exactly how much time has passed between TR and Infinity War? We don't do so for the other MCU movies, only detailing the fact that they do follow a previous movie. Besides, as has been identified it is going to be hard, if not impossible, for us to alter the wording in a way that accurately details this time difference. (How long a period of time does "shortly" cover, for example?) --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to say exactly how much time has passed, but if the intention of the note is to indicate when this film is happening in relation to a preceding film then we should at least mention that. At the moment, we do not. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. In that case, perhaps something like this:

Having acquired the Power Stone, Thanos and his lieutenants—Ebony Maw, Cull Obsidian, Proxima Midnight, and Corvus Glaive—intercept the spaceship carrying the survivors of Asgard's recent destruction.^{As depicted in the 2017 film Thor: Ragnarok.}

Use of the word "recent" avoids any unnecessary ambiguity with regards to exactly how much time has passed, and my suggestion implements previous suggested changes regarding superflous information (i.e. Xandar) being included. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I like it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Good. Unless there are no objections by this time tomorrow, I shall amend the opening sentence accordingly. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

That wording implies Thanos obtained the power stone in Ragnarok. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The note could be more explicit. "The destruction of Asgard is depicted in the 2017 film Thor: Ragnarok." 20:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Jasca Ducato you can't just set an arbitrary 24 hour deadline to end a months-long discussion. The change that was implemented completely ignored the concerns that this whole discussion is about: this note has been arbitrarily chosen out of many potential notes. The wording that was settled on for the note in no way justifies its singular inclusion here. In fact, if others are happy to interpret the film as beginning after the "recent destruction" of Asgard, which I do think is a fair interpretation of it, then the note is not even needed since there is no source outside of this film required to understand that. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The wording of the setence meets every single complaint you have had with regards to the inclusion of the note and you yourself have acknowledged multiples times now that there is a precedent for the note's inclusion. Simply put, everytime a justification for the note's inclusion is made your response is, quite simply, "nope, not justified" in an effort to completely ignore any position that possibly includes the note's inclusion, or changing the reason of your objection entirely.

Also, regarding your first point, there was nothing arbitrary about the 24 hour deadline (which in fact lasted longer than 24 hours since I wasn't able to action the change in time). As you have pointed out, this discussion has been going on for months now and it keeps going round in circles, so I decided to be bold and action the change accordingly. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't, or I wouldn't still be complaining about it. My whole point from the start has been that if we use a note to point to further explanation of the plot, then we should do it for all places (I am against this, I would rather there be no notes). You said this was different because this note is actually just telling readers where this film takes place in relation to the rest of the universe. That wasn't true, but we have worked on wording to try and improve on that. At this point you have come up with wording you like, and it kind of indicates the relationship you want, but really all it comes across as is an explanation of what the destruction of Asgard means, which brings us back to my original concern. I still have not seen wording that does what you claim you want to see, and so it is still my position that there should be no note at all. Also, you can't say something is not arbitrary and then explain that you just decided to do it 'cause. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Up until now, your grounds have changed multiple times and have, to date been as follows:

1. The plot summary being full of references to the previous movies that do not have notes – this had already been answered at the time of your writing by mentioning that the note's purpose was (and still remains) to orient the film's continuity with it's immediate predecessor, Thor: Ragnarok, which this move directly follows. This practice is universally accepted on all other MCU movie articles, where it has not caused contention.
2. The note doesn't explore the context and simply points readers to an earlier plot summary where they can learn about the events being noted – that is providing context to the reader, otherwise we'd have to include a breakdown of the previous movie's plot within this article's plot section.
3. The note does not indicate where in relation to Ragnarok this film takes place – the wording of the sentence says "the surviviors of Asgard", which makes clear that it takes place after the preceeding movie. You later circle back to this point, where I then propose changing the sentence structure to "Asgard's recent destruction", which you have not yet objected too.
4. That there is mention of Thanos' obtaining the Power Stone from Xandar in the lead sentence, despite this not being shown in Thor: Ragnarok – Thanos obtaining the Power Stone is not shown in any movie and, short of creatining yet another note in the lead sentence which explains this (despite it being explained later in this film), there is no practical way to seperate the two clauses of the lead sentence without breaking the flow of the paragraph. Also, this objection now makes no mention of continuity, which has been your point of contention up until this point.
5. There is precedence for a note from other MCU movies articles but that precedence is irrelevant here because "no good suggestion" has been put forward – the fact that you, personally, do not consider any suggestion as being enough to warrant the note's inclusion make this point redundant. Also, as pointed out previously, the note's inclusion perfectly meets the criteria for inclusion laid out in previous points (ie. continuity)
6. That an "arbitary 24 hour deadling was put in place in an effort to end a months-long circular discussion – Finally there was nothing arbitrary about the 24 hour deadline (which in fact lasted longer than 24 hours since I wasn't able to action the change in time). As you have pointed out, this discussion has been going on for months now and it keeps going round in circles, so I decided to be bold and action the change accordingly. Finally, the definition of arbitrary is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system;" the reason for the deadline given has been outlined above and is in-line with standard practice on Wikipedia, thus it is not arbitary.

The self-admitted fact that you do not want any notes in this article appears to be the driving point of your objection, rather than the wording of the sentence that the note accompanies being such that the note is not justified; this is irrelevant as personal wants and desires do not enter into it. Ee have precedence from previous MCU movie articles that justify the notes inclusion for the purposes of orientating continuity and every other reason you have given for removing the note (or, more accurately, for why the note isn't justified) has been answered sufficiently. The note is included to lay-out this movie's place in the MCU in relation to continuity, and the note does this point pointing out in no uncertain terms that it follows the events depicted in Thor: Ragnarok. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything. I stand by all of the points I have made. There is precedence to include these notes, and if we followed that precedence then this plot summary would be full of them. Since we are smarter than that and can make decisions based on the needs of this article, I am supportive of a more limited approach to the notes where necessary. The Captain Marvel one at the end is clearly necessary, but the only reason that the Ragnarok one is being suggested is because other articles do it. That would be fine if it made sense to have it here, but it doesn't per my previous points (it's arbitrary, a word that you apparently do not understand). Regardless, I am tired of discussing this with you since you clearly have no interest in coming up with a logical solution. Include the note if you must, but I still object to any random removal of important explanations from this paragraph. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Then we're all in agreement. I have re-incorporated the consensus version. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. I’m suggesting this discussion for a wikipedia record.--Zojj tc 04:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

Please change |website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] |website=[[Fandango (company)|Fandango]] to |website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] |publisher=[[Fandango (company)|Fandango]] since there can be only one website parameter per citation. This should remove the page from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls 63.233.104.126 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

thank you. 63.233.104.126 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019

41.115.110.224 (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with naming of Tony Stark/Iron Man's Hulkbuster/anti-Hulk armor

In the Avengers: Age of Ultron page, the armor is referred to as "anti-Hulk armor" but on the Avengers: Infinity War page, it says "Hulkbuster Armor." Is there a reason for this inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalr2d2 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a note on the Age of Ultron article explaining why it's called "anti-Hulk" armour. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Details on Thor/Obsidian

Check the edit history. I added details to what happened to those two characters, and without those details, a reader who hasn't seen the movie may be confused as to what happened to them. I understand not wanting to go overboard with detail, but for just a few extra words, it helps avoid a good deal of confusion. Buh6173 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

RRC1285 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Please give a option to edit it plz plz

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK _Talk 04:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request on 20 February 2021

In the second-to-last paragraph in the Plot section, the sentence beginning with, "The invading army routes..." should presumably read, "The invading army routs..." --Aureate01 (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done DonQuixote (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

Edit the Plot page, where it states Romanoff is left on the battlefield. She was, in fact, disintegrated with the rest. Nycodi (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Romanoff survives Infinity War and plays quite a role in Endgame. Possibly you're confusing Romanoff (Black Widow) with Maximoff (Scarlet Witch)? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done For reasons outlined by ElHef above. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 14:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hidden note on sequels

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.

Consolidate discussion on this matter at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#consensus on Avengers 5 & 6. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

---

[1] Current consensus is to NOT include Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars here

Where was this discussed? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2022 (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.

Moved to Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) § consensus on Avengers 5 & 6

 – Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Chinese Box Office

According to Box Office Mojo, the film's final gross in China is $359,543,153, which is lower than the $373.4 million figure provided by Deadline. A further look at the film's Chinese gross on Box Office Mojo shows that it decreased from $368,735,506 at the end of its sixth weekend to its final gross of $359,543,153. It looks like this could be due to changes in currency exchange rates. Is it accurate to still use the final Chinese figure provided by Box Office Mojo for the film's total gross? IMO, it should either be changed or we should mention it in a footnote. ~Rajan51 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

change

"shooting back-to-back with a direct sequel, Avengers: Endgame (2019)." It aint like theres multiple direct sequels shouldnt it say "The direct sequel"? Warpfrz (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the introduction of the sequel, before we reveal it to the reader it is "a sequel" and once they know about it it becomes "the sequel". - adamstom97 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)