Talk:Avengers: Infinity War

Angela Bassett's Ramonda confirmed?

https://screenrant.com/avengers-infinity-war-black-panther-characters/ Many sources like from here (link above) and Comicbook etc are saying that T'Challa's mother Ramonda is in Infinity War. Can we add her or wait for a better source or when movie comes out? Regards, EgyptianMarvelSWFan

Confirmed by THR. Sourced and added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Order

Is this source reliable enough to confirm the actors playing the members of the Black Order? [1] 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if they did have actors names, but it has since been updated to say "voice cast has not been confirmed", so ultimately, no this doesn't have the info because none have been confirmed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Iron Spider

Multiple sources with promotional materials have listed the character's alias as Iron Spider. Should the character's name be changed to this, or referenced that he will be wearing the "Iron Spider suit" provided by Tony Stark? Just a thought.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Ebony Maw Actor confirmed

Tom Vaughan-Lawlor plays Ebony Maw in the movie. Confirmed by an Interview for Inverse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.222.1 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Runtime

Hi this is EgyptianMarvelSWFan here and recently news came around that IW will be 2hrs and 36 mins long from multiple sites like this here: https://www.cbr.com/avengers-infinity-war-runtime-2/ They reported the runtime from AMC theaters. Should we use the source for now until British Board Classification confirms it? or just wait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptianMarvelSWFan (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait till the makers confirm. Because different theatres have different run times for films. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A similar situation was with Ragnarok, but runtime was the same.46.146.4.124 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, some theatres, like those in India, put an interval in the midst of the movie; thereby rendering a longer runtime. Also, some theatres may not screen the post-credits scene. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH. Theatre chains shouldn't be used to source the runtimes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Fandango also confirmed the runtime: http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/03/17/avengers-infinity-war-runtime-confirmed/ Medjay Bayek (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Cast section layout

Hi all. Wanted to have a discussion about how to format this now that we have the poster. I created a version where the infobox and lead use top billing order, while the cast section uses the billing block for the main bullets. Then additional MCU reprises also get bullets and new cast in prose. TriiipleThreat also created a viable option, using only top billing in the cast section, and everyone else in a table. I think there maybe is a world where we possibly combine the two? Because I think we should use the billing block order in the cast section, even though it is larger than top billing. After that, open to ideas of how to represent the remaining cast. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should keep it as is to keep the section length down and to be consistent with the infobox but am not entirely opposed to your suggestion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think because we have virtually no production information here, we shouldn't feel so bad about the section length. As I mentioned, I do think the cast section should have the full billing block order (this also allows us to include relevant info about Sean Gunn as Rocket on set, and Notary mo-capping Groot). After that, I think a combo of you're idea with mine might work. I've made some mock ups to look at, with various options, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Still you’d be adding back in a bunch of other names without much info. If it’s that important to you we can add the Rocket and Groot info in the form of a note. Also its not about the size of the article but the size of the section. At some point it just becomes noise.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you feel we should be forgoing the character info we usually add, like what we have for Pepper and Hawkeye? Regardless, I will add in the notes for the Rocket and Groot info for the time being. We should see what others have to say on the layout. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Well if the role isn't significant enough to be one of the 19 names listed on the top poster, then I don't think we should worry about it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

But that's sort of the point I was trying to make regarding using the billing block. Those additional 10 names are on the poster, so I don't think we should be excluding them from the normal cast section bullets. Not to mention we have the situation with Guirira and Wright in the top billing, but not the block below. Obviously we don't know the behind the scenes dealing that determined who would be in the billing at all, and who out of that would get top billing, so it's hard to judge significance or priority. I'm fine if we separate out all the other cast members and lose any prose descriptions/commentary for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's best to have the poster's top billing be used for the infobox and lead prose, and then to use the full billing block on the poster for the cast bullet points. Any additional actors, such as Jeremy Renner, Paul Rudd, and Angela Bassett for example, we can figure it out as either paragraph prose like other MCU cast sections or something else. That's my two cents. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are on the poster but they're not significant enough to be one of the top 19. 19 is already a lot (Age of Ultron and Civil War have 17 and 16, respectively). We don't really need to get into the details of the 27th listed cast member even if its a recognizable character from a previous film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Names at the top in Starring and bulleted section, anything else goes in prose below. We need to stop being so precious about what people get put in bullet form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding edits like this and the laundry list of names, the table is more readable than prose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the use of this table. It is giving more prominence to the supporting cast members than the main characters, unlike having prose paragraphs below the list, and is confusing to me on whether it is additional cast to those in the infobox or additional to the actual cast list.

I believe we need to be using the poster's top listing for the infobox and the full billing block for the cast list, with paragraphs below that for everybody else. The fact that it is going to be a really big section should just be incentive to us to be more concise with our list and think about what actually needs to be said about each character; for instance, we could try and keep discussion of specific character arcs or design elements to the production article in writing and design sub-sections.

I would also like to suggest that we go back to just saying and features an ensemble cast with many actors from previous MCU films in the lead. I know having three different lists in the article isn't ideal, but this is just getting ridiculous. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Favre that the production section is going to be very small in this article relative to our other ones, so having a bigger cast section is not going to make the article too big. Not to mention that we were always going to have bigger and bigger cast sections, something that we have already dealt with (and I thought come to terms with) in the previous few crossover films.

On Guirira and Wright specifically, my initial thought is that they were put at the top of the poster for marketing reasons since we've just had Black Panther and they were a big hit in it. When using the full billing block, I wouldn't try to fit them in because they are at the top of the poster. I'd just have them be the first names in the next paragraph below the list. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the spam everyone, just trying to get all my thoughts down. Favre has put together the different options so far here, and I have added my preferred option for the cast section as Option 4. I have used the full billing block, and tried to cut down some of the prose content for each of the bigger paragraphs to try and keep it manageable (extra details can go in the production, as I stated above). I have then added the other returning characters in a single paragraph below the list, and I think this is much less intrusive and gives a lot less weight to the supporting cast than the table option does. The table just stands out heaps and draws attention to itself, which I don't think my little paragraph does. Let me know any thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I like Option 2. I think shifting from a bulletted list to prose for the penultimate section in Option 4 makes it harder to parse out the many names that are still left in that section. I do like moving to columns for the people of lesser prominence and prose is fine for things like Lee's constant cameos. Using tables of any sort does feel to me like it imbues those sections with extra and unwarranted prominence. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Just as another note, for people coming here who don't have much experience with other MCU articles, my option is the standard formatting (with an extra emphasis on being concise), and the other options are all new proposals that are being tried out. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the others that Option 4 is preferable because it follows billing order. But I also think the infobox needs to be fixed as well. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Adam, I like your Option 4. I think you did a good job of keeping things concise. This is how Option 4 would look in the article, and I don't think it is over bearing. One think I'd like to note. Regardless of what we chose for formatting, if the table we ahve now stays, we need to adjust its layout. As it stands, when viewing the article on the mobile site, this table comes first, which is really confusing to have the table of "Additional cast" before the actual cast. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Out of all the options, Option 4 looks the least fan-boy/fansite. Honestly this edit is ridiculous. Should have left it as it was before we decided that starring roles vs secondary roles need to be shown differently. Completely superfluous. You guys are over-killing it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay this is looking ridiculous. It's better to use a sandbox for edits like this where apparently we're debating the format. Whoever decided and changed the layout to this - it looks ridiculous. It should have been left as is!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because they didn't fit EVERYONE's name on the poster doesn't mean we need a new infobox listing secondary/supporting characters. Each of them are in the film. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I came to the talk page specifically to complain about the cast section not being correct in the infobox. Manual of Style for film infoboxes dictates that the cast list should be based on the billing block order, and there's no reason that Infinity War should be an exception. The reason that it is based on billing block order is for the reason of consistency. Every film has random DVD covers, posters, etc, putting cast members into random orders that are inconsistent in style and meaning. But every film also has an official billing block which is consistent in style and meaning. Wikipedia bases their infoboxes on the latter.

Looking forward to somebody fixing this. Because I was quite confused by what we have now. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, wtf is going on? Prose is not hard to read, the entire bloody article is prose. Stop fanboying it and stick those extra names in prose. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be some WP:SNOWBALLing that the additional cast should be presented in prose. What’s not so clear is if we should use the top of poster or the billing block for the bulleted list.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

On that last point Triiiple, and in response to Nikki Lee 1999's comment above, there was a recent discussion somewhere else (can't remember at the moment) where this idea of using the shorter listing from the top of the poster in the infobox was made. I thought that was a good idea for some cases, especially after the issue we had with Age of Ultron. For those who are unaware, the billing for that film included actors like Idris Elba who only really had a cameo in the film but was included in the billing likely because he is a big star in the franchise. We list him in all three of the cast lists for that article, which some editors protested.

After reading this suggestion recently, I started thinking that it may be a positive change to have the shorter listing from the top of the poster as the general cast listing when things start getting a bit much, but still use the longer billing block list for the actual cast section so that we are still following that official list, but cutting some of the fat, so to speak, for the lead and infobox. I think this would be a benefit here as well; use the full list from the billing block, but have the slightly shorter version in the infobox. I would also like to raise again here my suggestion that we avoid a listing all-together in the lead, since both versions of the list are just too big for that opening paragraph in my opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide whose name is and isn't worthy of being on the billing block. That becomes original research and a personal judgement call. It's our job to present the information in a formal and consistent format. For what it's worth, Idris Elba is still in the infobox. If we were to use the random names at the top of the poster, for every film, then I suppose it would be understandable. But right now, this article is not in line with Wikipedia's manual of style for infoboxes. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is our job to try and make the best encyclopaedic articles that we can, and there is nothing wrong with having any discussion that hopes to further that goal. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I completely agree with User:Nikki Lee 1999. When editors start over-analyzing information, when it is plainly given by the studio - it can come very close to personal research territory. Our job is to present the information based on facts. A studio's stance/position on their own movies is as straight forward as information could possibly get. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind just a little bit when I saw the billing block for Spider-Man Homecoming. Only Childish Gambino and Tyne Daly were actually listed in the billing block. Other than that, I discovered that Mackie is not in the Ant-Man billing block, and that Atwell and Stan are not in the First Avenger billing block. All others were identical to Wikipedia. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Break

I've gone ahead and converted the section to prose. I also used the billing block order. Essentially I put in Option 4. We can still discuss which order to use and the prose paragraph formatting if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So glad this was resolved! And was not changed to those goofy fan-site formats. Completely ridiculous that editors were even pushing for those.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Infinity War redirect

Currently, "Infinity War" redirects to "The Infinity War", a comics storyline which the film (as claimed) is not based on. Would it be better if it redirected to the film article? That's because the comic's title includes a "The" which the film's title does not. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, especially since I think "Infinity War" does/will have more notability attached to this film. I will make the change, and add a hatnote here redirecting back to the comic article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Infinity War ticket presales update

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180320005353/en/

Hope we can add this into the box office section of the wiki page for Infinity War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

New Infinity War trailer is third-most viewed ever in 24 hours

The Hollywood Reporter says the new Infinity War trailer is now the third most-viewed trailer in 24 hours with 179 million views: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/avengers-infinity-war-trailer-nabs-third-biggest-debut-ever-1096024.

Please add this to the movie's wiki page.