Talk:Avengers: Infinity War

The Infinity Gauntlet

How does this article not include a single mention of The Infinity Gauntlet or Jim Starlin? Seems like a massive oversight... Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right. Its in the first line of the production article but not here. We must of overlooked it when we summarized that content here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer and TriiipleThreat: Per my own comment further down, this seems to be a specious fan interpretation of a deliberately ambiguous pre-release quote from the director. Starlin also wrote Thanos Quest, at rougly the same time, in a manner that could justify Russo referring to both of them collectively as a single work, and the plot of this film (as opposed to the still-under-wraps sequel) has more in common with TQ than IG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I understood it to mean the Infinity Gauntlet storyline, not just the Infinity Gauntlet miniseries. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's probably the best reading, but it's not what our current wikilink (or the "1991" date) says, and the problem with primary sources is that it's technically OR to assume it means one thing rather than the other. The current live version is not OR as it takes the comicbook.com source (Outlaw, not Russo) at face value: the problem with that is that it's pre-release fan speculation. In the long term what we really need is a reliable source by someone who has seen the film, has read the comics, and is not being deliberately coy about their contents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Its also OR include to Thanos Quest in that meaning without a reliable source. The only thing in common with Thanos Quest is that he actively collecting the stones at the start of the movie, but the events of Thanos Quest are far different. There are scenes in the movie ripped straight from Infinity Gauntlet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Its also OR include to Thanos Quest in that meaning without a reliable source. "also"? What did you think I was talking about? The only thing in common with Thanos Quest is that he actively collecting the stones at the start of the movie, but the events of Thanos Quest are far different. Yes, but the events of the Infinity Gauntlet miniseries are completely different except that slightly more of the same characters are involved. It's also wrong to say "at the start of the movie" -- he spends the whole movie collecting them, and only gets the final one something like five minutes before the end credits. There are scenes in the movie ripped straight from Infinity Gauntlet. Visual allusions like Cap standing up to Thanos don't count; the closest similarity is the murder of half the universe with the completed Gauntlet, but that happens at the start of the comic, and the end of the film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the accuracy of the claim might depend on the edition of Infinity Gauntlet you're looking at. The Omnibus hardcover included Thanos Quest.

How would you feel about replacing "draws inspiration from Jim Starlin's 1991 "The Infinity Gauntlet" comic " with "draws inspiration from Jim Starlin's 1990-1991 "Infinity Gauntlet" storyline"? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That wording would be better, but my concern is that the wording of the source (Russo, not Outlaw) implies the 1991 miniseries specifically: the "book" in Certainly the Starlin book was our jumping-off point is difficult to read as referring to the Omnibus hardcover, and near impossible to read as referring to an abstract storyline spanning multiple series. I think until some secondary sources that say things like "The film shows the influence of X" start showing up (if they haven't already?), the better compromises would be (a) to go vague like saying Joe Russo stated in an interview that the story was influenced by writer Jim Starlin and and Jonathan Hickman's 2013 "Infinity" comic or (b) to give a direct quote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you think this is sufficiently reliable? It's dated after the film's release and says "Infinity War is heavily based on The Infinity Gauntlet" Argento Surfer (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Music

I believe this article has a good paragraph of stuff that applies to our music section here, but I don't want to read it at the moment because I am trying to avoid Ready Player One spoilers, so I thought I would just drop it here in case anyone else wanted to go ahead and add it now. Otherwise, I'll get to it in a few days once I've seen the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit on it right at the end of the article I'll add in here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Infinity War budget revealed at $300 million

The Hollywood Reporter revealed in their interview with Marvel Studios VP of Production, Victoria Alonso, that Avengers: Infinity War's budget is $300 million dollars: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvels-victoria-alonso-keeping-avengers-infinity-war-budget-1099377?utm_source=twitter. Hope we can add that into Infinity War's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Deadline has first official projection's for Infinity War's opening weekend to be at $200M plus

http://deadline.com/2018/04/avengers-infinity-war-record-box-office-opening-1202358812/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

IMAX poster for Infinity War has Danai Gurira's name billed in between Idris Elba and Peter Dinklage

IMAX poster for Infinity War has Danai Gurira's name billed in between Idris Elba and Peter Dinklage: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaBnQnXUwAA4R88.jpg:large.

I hope we can add her into the cast list on the wiki page in the list of characters and cast memebers listed by bullet point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The theatrical poster's bottom billing (but in order from the IMAX poster)

• Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man
• Chris Hemsworth as Thor
• Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner / Hulk
• Chris Evans as Steve Rogers
• Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow
• Don Cheadle as James "Rhodey" Rhodes / War Machine
• Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Strange
• Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man
• Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa / Black Panther
• Zoe Saldana as Gamora
• Karen Gillan as Nebula
• Tom Hiddleston as Loki
• Paul Bettany as Vision
• Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch
• Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson / Falcon
• Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes / Winter soldier
• Idris Elba as Heimdall
• Danai Gurira as Okoye
• Peter Dinklage as Eitri
• Benedict Wong as Wong
• Pom Klementieff as Mantis
• Dave Bautista as Drax the Destroyer
• Vin Diesel as Groot
• Bradley Cooper as Rocket
• Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts
• Benicio del Toro as Taneleer Tivan / The Collector
• Josh Brolin as Thanos
• Chris Pratt as Peter Quill / Star-Lord
• Stan Lee

Do you really want to change back how the usual billing is, or having to keep it as this forever, TriiipleThreat? If we can just let go, I want you or the other editors to keep the cast billing (how it is from the IMAX poster), because HAVE YOU NOTICED ... that Gurira is on the billing? Keep it as Gurira is on the billing, except Wright. Please. Christian M. (2016) 2:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We always use the theatrical release poster because it’s the most common and readily available in the article for verification. I don’t think we should change that just for the addition of one name.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Triiiple that the theatrical release poster is the one we base billing on. But even then, editors can choose to format that list accordingly to what will work best for this article; nothing is set in stone. The formatting for this article has been established by the consensus above because of the exorbitant amount of billed actors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in the film's end credits Sebastian Stan is credited as Bucky Barnes / Winter Solder, not as White Wolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.42.25 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

He is still called it in the film. Perhaps listing him as credited but noting the White Wolf name in the character paragraph is appropriate? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

First full length feature fully shot IMAX film?

I'm seeing news articles that state that this is first feature COMPLETELY shot with IMAX cameras. There is a distinction because "Wings of Courage" in 1995 was the first dramatic feature, but only 40mins long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk)

Sequel Information: Update

The Russo Brothers dropped the Title of "Infinity War 2" in 2014 saying that the two movies would have completely different identities. Recently the Russo Brothers tweeted that the reason that the title is still "Untitled Sequel" is due to the fact that the next movie's title will give away a lot of information on what happens in the first movie (also found here: ). GodsHaveMercy (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't the Untitled Avengers film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The article talks about the Untitled Avengers film, previously titled "Infinity War — Part 2" but was dropped in "favor of an unannounced title". Not only have the Russo Brothers implied that the title of the sequel will give away parts of the first movie, but also Marvel Studios President stated its "because its a spoiler for what comes before it". The original article states that this sequel will be released in 2019 as the "(currently final) avengers film". GodsHaveMercy (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Again. That all has to do with the sequel film and this is about Infinity War and makes proper note of the sequel with current info. So I don't really know what you want added or changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Most ambitious crossover event in history

Might be worth mentioning how the marketing of the movie called it the "most ambitious crossover event in history" which led to a lot of people online making fun of that statement by providing other examples of arguably more ambitious crossover events. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/avengers-infinity-war-marvel-ambitious-crossover-event-twitter-highlights-superhero-movie-a8266221.html CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Steve Rogers = Nomad?

I've seen a new [post] in the official Instagram account of the Russo Brothers, that Chris Evans is Nomad. Then I've edited Steve Rogers' part in the "Cast" section and added the reference. Rnsevenman (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The image is a fan poster, nothing official from Marvel. The Russos have already gone on record he will not be called that in the film, despite embodying the characteristics of Nomad. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: That may be true, but they have since posted the image as their official profile picture. The filmmakers may have A) changed their mind, B) been trolling fans, or C) Marvel continues to blow smoke and mirrors so as to keep the element of surprise within their movies. Common sense says that it's any combination of these scenarios. When the filmmakers state that "Chris Evans is the Nomad" with their profile picture...what else do you need for confirmation (That's not a question, that's a statement).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A director setting FAN ART as a social media picture is absolutely not any indication the character is taking the name. Especially when they have stated in interviews this is not the case. The directors can show support of fan interest/art. That doesn't mean it is factual. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Children of Thanos

@DisneyMetalhead: The source for Ebony Maw only mentions him as being a child of Thanos. This phrase is not mentioned in any of the sources for the other characters. The only semi-official source I could find is from Ryan Penagos' twitter. However, The Nerdist calls this a "metaphorical title" and IGN says its symbolic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually this article from Marvel does call them the Children of Thanos, but does not mention the Black Order. Same goes for Penagos' tweet. Seems the term "Children of Thanos" is replacing "Black Order" in the film. Any suggestions on how to address this? The article reads as if these are separate distinctions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Marvel only seems to be calling them the "Children of Thanos" in their material. However, the Russos have used the term "Black Order" so I think both are okay to include (until the film comes out and we see what is actually used or not). So currently, having "portray children of Thanos and members of his Black Order" seems okay and clear to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Still not sure about using “and” because they do not seem to be separate distinctions. Sources seem to indicate the Children of Thanos ‘’is’’ the Black Order. Furthermore “Children” should be capitalized per sources because this is a group name, not Thanos’ actual offspring.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I see what you meant now. Though once the film's out, we might find it is better to categorize them as simply the "Black Order" or simply the "Children of Thanos". Or both terms could be used interchangeably. We'll see. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

In a slightly related note, is Noary voicing his character too? I might’ve read the Russo’s quote wrong but perhaps it’s a David Prowse situation where he did the voice onset then another actor dubbed him over. Rusted AutoParts 03:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Russo brothers said yes but the role is largely silent.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Regarding the mo-cap bits for these characters, I definitely understand what you mean by "portray" can cover both voicing and mo-cap, but I think it should be mentioned in some form, because just by the listing, I don't think it is easily known these characters are CGI ones. So maybe it simplifies down to something like Terry Notary, Tom Vaughan-Lawlor, and Carrie Coon voice members of the Black Order — the "Children of Thanos": Cull Obsidian, Ebony Maw, and Proxima Midnight, respectively; the trio also performed motion-capture for their characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I changed the wording to take clarify the Black Order/Children of Thanos situation and remove some of the implied redundancy: Thanos' henchmen, known collectively in the comics as the Black Order, appear in the film as the "Children of Thanos": Terry Notary as Cull Obsidian, Tom Vaughan-Lawlor as Ebony Maw, and Carrie Coon as Proxima Midnight. The trio performed motion-capture for their characters in addition to voicing them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that works for me! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is nitpicking, and overthinking things. The characters have been re-worked for the film as the children of Thanos. Thanos raised Nebula and Gamora as siblings and his children/assasins. The same can be said for Proxima Midnight, Black Dwarf/Cull Obsidian, Ebony Maw, and Corvus Glaive. Though they may not (...or may) be his biological children, stating that they are all his children is at this point accurate. Just because an article capitalizes the 'c' in 'children' doesn't make the statement a title. The Russos have stated that the Black Order in these films will be reworked to be his children. That is all they say. It's as simple as they are his children/assassins known as the Black Order.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Capitalizing the 'c' does make it a title and it's done more than once in separate official accounts so it's not a typo. Several sources also state that the name Black Order won't be used in the film. The Nerdist actually addresses your comments directly, "While the movie will refer to them as the Children of Thanos–a metaphorical title, not to be confused with his actual adopted daughters Nebula and Gamora." Again like Favre suggested we can adjust this as needed once the film is released.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it is definitely a title of some sort. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: The Nerdist isn't the most reliable source, and unless they quoted someone involved with the production, I would say their speculation is not solid at all. Capitalizing the 'c' in 'children' absolutely makes it as a title as it becomes a proper noun. The directors have called them the Black Order throughout production and stated it as simple as the fact that the team has been reworked to be Thanos' children. That's it. Once the film's released I'm sure it will be more clear.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As stated before The Nerdist isn’t alone. The phrase “Children of Thanos” is used frequently in both official and unofficial sources. Also the directors saying the term Black Order as part of casual conversation isn’t an indication of anything. The same thing happened with Black Wifow in Iron Man 2, where the name was used repeatedly in marketing materials but never uttered on screen. We are less than a week away. We shall find out for sure then.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This talk page is very long and when I saved a comment I had just made, while loading back up I was shown a heading that was related to an edit I recently made to the article. We can call them what sources call them throughout the majority of the article, of course, but the plot summary at least should not use any in-universe terms that are not used in the film proper, as long as the plot summary does not include citations of secondary sources. Gamora and Nebula were explicitly called children of Thanos in both this film and the last two films they appeared in, and they both have the exact opposite reaction to their "father" to the DBZ movie henchmen in this film, so simply viewing the films themselves would not support calling them Thanos's children. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

Social: Youtube Channel

Youtube

Sdfgdgdfby (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2018 (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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War's final official runtime classified

Well, guys, the BBFC has spoken. #Avengers: #InfinityWar's official runtime has been revealed to be 149 minutes and 9 seconds, making it the longest Marvel movie by 2 minutes ahead of Civil War: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/avengers-infinity-war-film. Guess that 156 minute runtime was a placeholder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.53.84 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done: thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"10-Year Legacy Featurette"

Should we include mention of the "10-Year Legacy Featurette"[1], it has received third party coverage at [2] and [3]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. While the featurette is to promote this film, its content is about the universe as a whole, and that doesn't really fit here. I also don't see it fitting in another MCU article, much like the release of the 10-year "class photo". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article needs to be created then where should things would fit into. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

But this isn't really material that would need to be discussed, so a new article wouldn't need to be created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Budget

We have Marvel's head of production confirming a $300 million budget, but we can't include a budget amount of $353 million from the company filings?? I know Sylt's article said that was the UK spend, but he is wrong. The company filings are for all spending by the company...they even mention much of the turnover (spending) was in the United States, as Georgia is the primary filming location. Sure, they spent a short time in the UK, but is anyone going to argue that they spent $358 million only in the UK for only a tiny portion of the location shooting...especially when papers in Scotland reported last month that they only spent 11 million pounds there. The filings mentioned in Sylt's article have been used for the budgets on many films on wikipedia. Foodles42 (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

THR does not confirm $300 million, it says "a budget upwards of $300 million". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10068015/filing-history Look at "Full accounts". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And that is different from most budget estimates how? most budgets for most films are reported as "estimated at" or "budget of roughly" and so on and we list them. In any event, we have actual documented spending of $353 million. Foodles42 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've been discussing with Foodles on my talk page, the Telegraph article states Accounts for the production show that £248m was spent in the UK on staff and services. (bolding mine) We can't say this is the full budget for the film, because the article doesn't state that. That would be WP:OR. And WP:NOTTRUTH also applies. As to the Scotsman source also provided here by Foodles, I see nowhere where it mentions 11 million pounds. The only monetary amount I see in the article says was worth an estimated £10 million to the economy, and that's not a budgetary number, it's the influx of business the production brought to the area during filming. And finally to the THR article, that is not a confirmed number, only a speculative one on their part to what the budget was, so that shouldn't be used. All in all, WP:NORUSH with this. The sources will come eventually confirming what was spent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all reported budgets are speculative estimates. Very very few are based on an actual primary source showing the numbers. How many BOM citations are there for budget? Almost all use BOM for this and BOM uses reported estimates. So when THR says a budgets upwards of $300 million, that's the estimate....one that was not contradicted by Marvel. And fine, here is the Location Guide stating "local spend of roughly GBP10 million in Scotland, taken from a budget of USD400 million." So I am going to insert the $400 million, as the Location Guide is as authoratative as it gets and they are quite specific. I still think a range should be included, as the infobox rules are quite clear on this, but whatever.Foodles42 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, infobox rules for budget read: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters). Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." Emphasis on "approximate budget" and "estimates". That's what virtually all these budgets are. Here we have conflicting estimates, so following the rules, we include a range. Foodles42 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia since you edited my earlier change to fix the source citations, I assume you are fine with using the well-sourced budget range? Foodles42 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I support a range if the articles conflict, but I have not yet read the WSJ source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. WSJ said "cost close to $300 million". And now Newsweek also used the "rumored $400 million budget", in addition to The Location Guide, which also said $400 million. Given the actual audited company filings for the film show just over $350 million spent, it seems the $400 million is closer to reality, but the rules do dictate the range, which we are good on. Foodles42 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've put the Newsweek source in the infobox. I'm also moving back the Telegraph source to also use in the infobox range. As more sources are reporting on this range, I agree now that it isn't plausible for the £248 million listed to have been spent only in the UK, despite the very misinformed wording the article uses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 no worries, that article definitely botched up the details. :) Foodles42 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The one thing we can be sure of is that Disney has spent at least £248 million on this film. The cost will most likely be higher because Disney won't submit its 2018 costs until later this year or even next year. This is pretty much the only fact we have, and all the other figures are simply estimates (and if they have been published since Wikipedia installed the information we have to be careful of WP:CIRCULAR sourcing). Fluctuating conversion rates also complicate matters: since the beginning of 2017, the dollar has fluctuated in value between $1.20 and $1.45, meaning the dollar equivalent of that £248 million is in the $300–360 million range. I think bearing that in mind the only thing we can be sure of is that the film cost over $300 million. I think for now a range of $300–400 million is a sensible compromise, but we should keep a look out for more HMRC figures so we can pin down a more exact figure. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

5.200.172.185 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2018 (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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

Farcry12345 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2018 (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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Role of James Gunn

I understand that he is not included in the infobox as he is an executive producer and not a producer, should this article have more mention of him? A possible source [4] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Another one [5] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

Burj Khalifa [6] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass sell out

Mass sell out [7] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Update

Surely the premier has come on by now, right?

If not, can it be updated immediately after it does?

Even if those that saw the premier are still instructed to keep quiet until the 27th, we can at least change it to say it premiered rather than is scheduled to premier. Once the premier comes on, if it hasn't already. (I don't live in LA or even America so I don't know) 68.150.5.99 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

Extended content

Immediately after Ragnarok of Asgard, the Asgardian ship is a wreck and almost everyone is dead. Thanos overpowers Thor and the Hulk with Power Stone which he acquired from Xandar. Loki gives the Tessaract to Thanos who crushes it and puts the Space Stone on his gauntlet. Loki tries to trick Thanos but is killed. Before Thanos could kill the Hulk, Hemidal sends Hulk to earth. Thanos teleports himself and the Black Order sets the ship to destroy itself. Steven Strange and Wong show up to Tony Stark and asks to join them. While they are talking, a Q-ship shows up and Wong, Stark, Banner and Strange try to help the people in the area. Ebony Maw faces off with Strange, captures him and takes him to the ship. Peter Parker sees the ship, suits up and gets into the battle. Stark sends the iron-spider suit to Parker before he runs out of oxygen. Stark blasts a hole in the wall of ship in the space which sucks Maw out to space and kills him. Strange nearly gets sucked out all the way but Parker saves him. The Guardians of the Galaxy arrive to destroyed Asgardian ship and save Thor. Thor, with Groot and Rocket, goes to Nidavellir to forge a new weapon, Stormbreaker while the rest go to the Collector where the reality gem is. Thor eventually manages to forge the Stormbreaker in Nidavellir and Groot gives his arm as the handle. In Scotland, Wanda Maximoff and Vision are attacked by Proxima Midnight and Corvus Glaive. Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff wound Glaive and Midnight, and they retreat. Vision, Rogers, Rodes, Maximoff, Sam Wilson, Romanoff, and Banner get to Wakanda. Drax, Mantis, Gamora, and Peter Quill reach Unknown. Thanos is already there questioning the Collector. Gamora goes and attacks Thanos and kills him, but Thanos was using the Reality Gem and Thanos has her in his grip. Thanos defeated and incapacitated them and he teleports away. Gamora tried to lie about her knowledge of soul stone, but Thanos totured Nebula until she reveals. Thanos and Gamora go to the planet to get the Soul Stone but Thanos has to sacrifice Gamora in order to get the stone. Gamora tried to kill herself before he could throw her with a double dagger. Then, Thanos gets the Soul Stone. In Wakanda, drop ships reaches and Black Order show up. Thanos's army begin pounding the force field and die. Wakanda army is assembled along with Barnes, Rodey, Falcon, T Challa and Banner in the Hulkbuster while Shuri is working on Vision. Dwarf and Midnight eventually get killed. Thor with Groot and Rocket show up and pushes back the Thanos's army. Meanwhile Stark, Parker and Strange crash land on Titan. The Guardians show up and start attacking each other, and eventually stop the misunderstanding. Thanos shows up on Titan and begins to fight. They are trying to prevent Thanos from closing his hand and Mantis holds Thanos in a state where he can't move. They try to remove the gauntlet but Mantis mentions that Thanos is remorseful of Gamora, and Quill loses control when he realizes that Gamora is dead. He hits Mantis which frees Thanos. Thanos goes full rage mode and slips the gauntlet back. During the battle, Thanos overpowers Strange, Parker, and stabs Stark. Then, Thanos teleports himself away to earth. Vision asks Maximoff to detach the stone from him and destroy. Maximoff is able to shatter the stone but it creates a blast that kills Vision. Thanos shows up and faces off Rogers but quickly overpowers him. Thanos undid what Maximoff had done and restored the stone. He defeats Maximoff quickly and puts the stone in his gauntlet. Thor shows up and stabs Thanos in the chest with Stormbreaker. Thanos hurts but snaps his fingers and disappears. Suddenly, people start to turn to ash and disappear, including Barnes and Challa. In Titan, Quill, Strange, Mantis, Drax and Parker turns to ash and disappear leaving Stark alone sobbing. In mid-credit scene, many people disappear in chaos in New York. Maria Hill starts to disappear as Nick Fury tries to activate a com with Miss Marvel insignia, and begins to disintegrate.

 Not done: Excessive plot from in-universe perspective, not appropriate for the article. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should be less than 700 words and per WP:V, anyone should be able to check that the information is reliable. So until the wide release (April 27) this is not possible.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The film will be released on 25 April in many countries. So it is possible that many wikipedians can check V. Is it your own opinion not to release plot until April 27 or is there any consensus among wikipedians? I think Wikipedia do not band spoilers.

Only a few, not many. Per sources cited in the article, the majority of releases is not until the 27th.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is worldwide. So it is irrelevant to wait until April 27. V is okay with a few countries. It is a systemic bias to hold the film plot until it was released in countries with many wikipedians. Is it your own opinion not to release plot until April 27 or is there any consensus among wikipedians?

For a summary sourced only to viewing the movie itself, wide availability is strongly preferred. However, there is now a spoilerific Forbes article that could be used to source plot points. Similar articles from reliable sources (not Reddit or other discussion forums) could also be used. --RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That is by a Forbes contributor not a staff member. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Variety has a review by its chief film critic that confirms the plot. --RL0919 (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Word count is <700 in current version. Editors can modify after being added. This plot summary sourced to movie itself. The film is released on 25 April in countries including Aus, NZ, Singapore, Phillipines, Korea, HK, and so on. So Wikipedians should not object to include the plot for V reason. I think it is ok to add the plot on 25 April afternoon in East Asia time zones (around GMT 03:00-06:00). There is no valid reason to wait until 27 April.

 Not done Not yet released in origin country. Not hard to wait, see WP:NORUSH. -- Alex^TW 07:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What does the "origin country" have to do with whether the plot is verifiable? --RL0919 (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s a made up rule for which there is no consensus. The film has been released. The plot can be added. Stephen 10:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• absolutely no consensus here to prevent the plot from being stated. The film is out in theatres. Plot is out. Articles are written. starship.paint ~ KO 10:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Jon Favreau not in Infinity War

Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan is not in Infinity War.

References

Sure. Not appears along with Renner, Rudd, Thompson, Bassett. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael Douglas in Infinity War

Hank Pym from Ant-Man had appeared in Avengers: Infinity War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.81.97 (talk)

• Source please. I watched the film, didn't notice him? When did he appear? Secretary of State scene? starship.paint ~ KO 12:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Delete all spoilers of the plot, the movie isn't even out yet in all countries 2A01:CB00:40A:C000:25FC:8A19:45DF:16AD (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia does not suppress spoilers -- see Wikipedia:Spoilers for more explanation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Handling spoilers in revisions

Maybe revisions that spoil the movie (and the reversions calling attention to the fact that an entire plot summary is in what they're reverting) should be deleted--Harmony944 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No revisions have been (or should be) reverted because of spoilers. Spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Spoilers for more explanation. Some plot summary additions were reverted earlier because of concerns that the content was not verifiable prior to the movie's wide release, but that was not a concern about spoilers. Deleting those revisions is not supported by our policy on revision deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The policy specifically only applies post release. You have no excuses--Harmony944 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No such limitation is mentioned in any of the pages I linked to. --RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert request to "short plot" version

I request that the "Premise" section be reverted to the short version of the "Plot" section as it existed earlier this morning, which IMO is most consistent with relevant Wikipedia policy as previously discussed. After some editors expanded it out to near the previously rejected "long" plot (apparently copied from the Forbes contributor, who probably copied most of it from Reddit), someone else deleted it claiming "Movie isn't out yet"; but as previously discussed here it IS out in enough foreign markets to meet WP:V, even though it's not out yet in the U.S. I could do it myself, but I would prefer a consensus as to which "short" version should be posted; IMO the "long" version is not only too long, but also not sufficiently verifiable and a potential copyvio. --RBBrittain (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the plot must return, i ‘ve already seen the movie. Its out in the Netherlands on the 24th SRich (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Restored to short summary. I expect the plot summary will grow again, since over-inflation of plot summaries is a common problem for articles about popular movies. As for the people who keep going the other direction and removing the plot entirely, they really need to get over the idea that "not released in my country" is the same as "not yet released". --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The plot of the film is verifiable now so should remain. Too bad if you have to learn Dutch and fly out to the Netherlands, but I suggest editors acquaint themselves with WP:SOURCEACCESS. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for those who aren't aware, the film has now been released in Australia, Belgium, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, South Korea, Sweden, and Tunisia. In many time zones it is already the 26th, which will see it released in Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Kuwait, Oman, Poland, Qatar, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates. --RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

And in about 22 hours (5 PM EDT) previews should begin in the eastern U.S. I've already seen multiple spoiler vids on YouTube from Australia alone. --RBBrittain (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to have been copied from the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wikia, which presents an attribution problem, I think.  cjquines  03:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It also seems to be too detailed -- since when did the long plot template get removed? Per WP:PLOTSUM we should limit plot summaries to 700 words. I don't think Infinity War's plot is complex enough to warrant this much detail, considering we've written up a version that summarizes the plot without going over this limit. cjquines  (Talk) 03:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The long plot seems to be based from this edit on 19:30 April 25, which seems copied from this edit on the MCU wikia, which is earlier. If we're going to use the long version, it's potentially a derivative work from the wikia, which may be from Reddit, as noted above.  cjquines  (Talk) 03:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither of our versions seem to be lifted from marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com. I have run the copyvio detector on both versions and result of a copyvio is "unlikely": [8] and [9]. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Loki offers the Tesseract timeline

Thanos slaughters most of the Asgardians and defeats the Hulk. Loki offers the Tessaract to Thanos in exchange for Thor's life, but is killed when Thanos anticipates Loki's attempt to betray him.

• This order of events is wrong. Loki does appear to offer the Tesseract to save Thor, but this was actually a distraction for Hulk to attack. For those who actually watched the film, remember he said "We have the Hulk!" Thanos then beats Hulk and either he or his minions pick up the Tesseract that Loki dropped, eventually killing Loki. Loki never actually gave the Tesseract to Thanos. The above plot seems to suggest Thanos threatened Thor after Hulk's attack, but that was actually before Hulk's attack in the film. starship.paint ~ KO 23:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

change thanos to thaneos Lettucelouise (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanos appears to be the spelling that is supported by all sources, can you provide an alternative? — IVORK _Discuss 05:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor plot correction

The current plot summary states that Heimdall is killed by Corvus Glaive - this is inaccurate, as he is actually killed by Thanos, who stabs him using Corvus Glaive's weapon, which is the source of the confusion. 60.224.139.242 (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who is holding the weapon—it doesn't change the fact that Heimdall dies and fully explaining it in prose just pads that section out with excess detail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Replace plot summary with brief description of premise

As the Avengers and their allies have continued to protect the world from threats too large for any one hero to handle, a new danger has emerged from the cosmic shadows: Thanos. A despot of intergalactic infamy, his goal is to collect all six Infinity Stones, artifacts of unimaginable power, and use them to inflict his twisted will on all of reality. Everything the Avengers have fought for has led up to this moment - the fate of Earth and existence itself has never been more uncertain. </ref>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/

^I feel like releasing a full plot before the release of such a big film can lead to many upset fans which is why i'm suggesting this instead. Rschwartz5 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Holding back on the plot because of spoilers violates Wikipedia policies—such as WP:SPOILERS. Withholding the synopsis is a form of censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. Once a film, book, video game or other media is released, readers can reasonably expect that plot details will be included in articles. If, as a result of that, the film is spoiled for them, then that's their fault.

Also, copying a synopsis from another website is a copyright violation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with PM. This proposal was wrong in so many ways. Also I cut down on the length of the section title as it was way too long, especially for a proposal that was never going to go anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Plot removal

Please remove the plot. Could be become spoil.... Blackpanther95007 (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Removing the plot because of spoilers is a form of censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

MarvelManiac29 (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)change Hames Rhodes to James Rhodes in the plot of the film.

 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. Waddie96 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The power stone

Could we please stop fussing over the exact circumstances under which Thanos gets the Power Stone? It doesn't matter if he takes it from Loki, if Loki offers it, or if he wins it in Quill's dance battle for the fate of the universe. The most relevant details are that a) Thanos wants the stone, b) Thanos gets the stone, and c) Thor, Loki and Hulk are powerless to stop him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

This article needs to be edited as it contains spoilers for the movie as the plot is already written. Asbhamaan (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per WP:SPOILER. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Change of Plot in order to prevent spoilers.

Instead of publishing the plot right now can we please switch the plot to "Thanos.demands.silence." in order to prevent spoilers. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorythefireengine (talk • contribs)

@Rorythefireengine: No, we cannot. Wikipedia contains spoilers. If the plot information is verifiable, then it stays in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not go up until the film is commercially released to the general public, which does not happen until tomorrow, April 27. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The film has already been released to "the general public" if you are outside the United States. Why should "the general public" mean the American public? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably because the film is an American production, the box office takings are measured "domestically"—which is to say in America—and Hollywood has an America-centric view of the world. None of which are valid reasons for censoring the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no censoring. Look at the infobox: It hasn't opened yet. Entertainment Weekly made the passing comment "with a few earlier April 25 debuts in a handful of countries," but the article contains no evidence of citation that this actually happened or even naming one of the purported countries. Find a cite showing that it's been released commercially. Because right now, that March 1 EW article is just WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in New Zealand, and I can confirm that yes, the film did indeed open here on April 25. And you don't have to just take my word for it; see here and here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking "your word for it" is WP:OR. And the first link you supplied doesn't say the movie opened, only that it was scheduled to open April 25 in some counties — and that some in New Zealand did not want it to open then. That link is WP:CRYSTAL. I'll check the other now.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in Australia and this (particularly the last paragraph) is further evidence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Please give another editor a minute to vet this claim. And please do not continue to ignore WP:FILMPLOT.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That link verifies it was released in Australia. Full steam ahead. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, do a search for "Avengers Infinity War" and "New Zealand" and see for yourself what you find. It is just factually false to say the movie has not been released commercially here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, we do not need your approval. Your insistence that the film has not opened is highly disruptive, if not outright vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is up to each editor to verify any claims he or she adds to Wikipedia. If anyone is vandalizing, it's editors who refuse to back up their claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming the plot section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Got reverted. If an edit war kicks off then someone please report this at WP:RPP and/or WP:AN3. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the plot section to a cohetent recount, one that is not written in an in-universe style. For example, why is it so significant that Hulk lands in the Sanctum Santorum? How will an audience who is not familiar with the subject know what or where this is? WP:FILMPLOT says the following:

"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range."

The lengthy lists of characters eaaily push the word count over 700 words. Given that there are over thirty named characters in the film, we can apply the FILMPLOT exception. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not for one editor to unilaterally decide. At least two editors, myself and Emir of Wikipedia, disagree with you. You are edit-warring to go against consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's called editconsensus. A consensus can emerge through established editing practices, and that version of the plot had been accepted for 12 hours. Your "consensus" has existed for 12 minutes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus for breaking the rules of WP:FILMPLOT. No other editor here agrees with you. Indeed, one other editor tagged the plot as too long, and that was then, properly, addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That was not "properly addressed". For one, parts were written in an in-universe style. More concerningly, your grammar was terrible. You had one sentence with multiple phrases and clauses, three separate subjects and a hit-and-miss approach to verb-subject agreement.

Also, you cannot reasonably expect a consensus to form in 12 minutes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a consensus to follow the rules. A consensus is needed if you're arguing for an exception to the rules.

And please: I had one run-on sentence that you fixed and I left alone. I wouldn't talk about poor grammar when you use "revert back" and an abundance of passive-voice construction. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who positioned the Sanctum Santorum as being important to the plot when it is only in the film for five minutes. What is more important: that Banner finds Strange and Wong, or that he finds them in the Sanctum Santorum? How would the plot be any different if Banner found them at Stark Tower, the Statue of Liberty or Yankee Stadium? If it wouldn't be any different, specifying the sanctum is unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Banner lands somewhere more specific than just "New York City." Stating the location explains without lengthy exposition how Banner and Strange/Wong interacted. Suggesting that Banner landed in "New York City" and had to track down Strange is not good writing. Good writing is specific. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Simply stating the location is in-universe because it assumes the casual reader is familiar with the subject. Good writing might be specific, but good writing does not assume prior knowledge in lieu of exposition. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We say, "Hulk crash-lands at the Sanctum Sanctorum of Stephen Strange and his major domo Wong in New York City/" I'm not sure how that's expecting any prior knowledge comics by the reader. A "sanctum" is "a sacred place," so it's the sacred place of Strange and Wong. Would it be clearer to say, "...the Sanctum Sanctorum, home of...."? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, why do you insist on referring to Parker as "Peter Parker/Spider-Man" when every other characters with an assumed name—Stark, Rodgers, Romanoff, Barnes, T'Challa, Strange, Quill and probably half a dozen others I am forgetting—is only only ever referred to by their given name? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't insist; in fact, I've just left your most recent edit in that respect alone. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly restored it to the article. I've had to remove it two or three times now. So either you think there's a reason for keeping it or you're not paying attention to what you're doing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem unfamiliar with the concept that people can look at their own work, reexamine it in fuller context, and change their minds. That can happen when people work quickly and on the fly. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with it. You will, however, forgive me for being skeptical in this case given that you engaged in highly disruptive editing practices because you had not seen confirmation of the film's release. A simple Google search would have yielded the confirmation you sought, but you demanded other editors present sources to you. We do not need your permission to make changes because you don't own the article. Given your behaviour, I think it's quite clear that you weren't paying attention to what you were editing.

Also, did it not occur to you that the film is a major release and that it's failure to open as scheduled in over a dozen territories would be a major news event? When you did not see those articles, didn't you realise that the film had opened? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"A simple Google search would have yielded the confirmation". Then whatever editor was making the claim that the film had been released should have done that. We're all responsible for confirming our own claims. It's lazy and against the guidelines to insist other editors do your work for you.

"it's [sic] failure to open as scheduled in over a dozen territories would be a major news event". We don't deal in abstract hypotheticals. We deal in concrete facts. The guidelines are very clear: If you're making a claim, you, not other editors, are responsible for backing up that claim. And to suggest that editors wanting you to adhere to proper practice and guidelines is being "disruptive" is the height of gall.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You made the claim that the film had not been released to the general public. Where was your source to support that statement? Why are we obligated to provide sources, but you are not? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The plot cannot go in until the film is released commercially. Therefore, it is contingent on whoever first put in the plot to ensure that the film had opened. That is basic Wikipedia policy: You make an edit, you back up your claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Which you did not do. You claimed the film had not been released commercially but provided no evidence to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You're asking another editor to prove a negative. No. One can't prove a negative. One can only prove a positive. That is basic logic; feel free to look it up. The fact remains: An editor claiming the movie opened early, without any evidence of such in the article, needed to provide evidence of it. And editors did, so it's a moot point and I don't understand why you're still arguing about it. It's beginning to be harassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware that there were no sources to prove your claim, and that was the point. But that doesn't exempt you from the same standards that you demanded everyone else follow. If you had kept it on the talk page, that would have been fine. But you repeatedly reverted the article, which was disruptive and you knew it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. I said, and any intelligent adult should know, that one cannot prove a negative, only a positive. It was up to the first editor who claimed the movie had been released, despite nothing in the article saying so, on whom the onus fell. Not me, not you, not anyone else. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot rewrite

@Tenebrae: I said I was happy to discuss this further, so could we please have a more in depth discussion on my changes? I completely understand that it can suck when people work on something just to have it seemingly undone so quickly by someone else who was not involved, but that does not mean they should be allowed to keep their version. I think it would be easiest if you gave some more specifics on why you didn't like my changes, and then we could go from there. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a couple minutes. Overall, though, we generally don't make wholesale changes to versions arrived through multiple editors' consensus.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are side-by-side comparisons of the adamstom97 version followed by the extant versions:

• "A week after Thanos and his adoptive children ... retrieved the Infinity Stone of Power from the planet Xandar, they intercept a spaceship carrying the last survivors of Asgard."

or

• "Following the destruction of Asgard,(note) and having acquired the Power Stone from the planet Xandar, Thanos and his adoptive children ... intercept the ship with the surviving Asgardians to extract the Space Stone from the Tesseract."

I would say the statement that it's been a week (which I don't recall from the film, which I've seen twice) really isn't important. Would it make a different if it had been two weeks, or six days? I also think we need to give the reason why Thanos has intercepted the ship.

• "Before he dies, Heimdall uses the Bifröst ..."

or

• Heimdall uses the Bifröst..., then is killed by Glaive."

It's more plot-specific to say Heimdall was killed for his specific action than just died from a wound or any number of reasons. (I'm not wild for the passive voice in this sentence, but because the sentence also involves a third character, Hulk, the active voice would be a hard construction to use here.)

• "Thanos takes the Space Stone from Loki before killing him, and obliterates the ship."

or

• "Killing Loki and taking the Space Stone, Thanos departs with his children and obliterates the ship."

The first version is shorter and might be better. It does leave the lingering thought, to me, of "Why did he obliterate the ship with himself in it?"

• "Hulk crash-lands in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the sorcerer Stephen Strange in New York City, and reverts to his human form of Bruce Banner."

or

• "Hulk crash-lands at the Sanctum Sanctorum of Stephen Strange and his major domo Wong in New York City, and reverts to Bruce Banner. After hearing of Thanos' intention to kill half the universe's population...."

Specifying that Strange is a sorcerer is probably a good idea. I'm not sure why we would jettison Wong when he plays a significant, multi-scene part (unlike Parker's friend Ned). I also think by saying that the Hulk reverts to a named person, we've no reason to think that person isn't human, making "his human form" redundant. I also think it's important to state Thanos' goal, and how the heroes learn of it.

• "Maw captures Strange. Stark and Parker pursue Maw's spaceship while Banner contacts the Avengers."

or

• "Maw captures Strange; Stark and Parker pursue Maw's spaceship while Wong remains to protect the sanctum. Banner contacts the other Avengers."

I agree with adamstom97; Wong protecting the Sanctum has no bearing on the rest of the movie's plot.

• "In Scotland, Midnight and Glaive ambush Vision, whose consciousness comes from the Mind Stone, and Wanda Maximoff. They are rescued by Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Sam Wilson, all former members of the Avengers. The group seeks shelter with James Rhodes at the Avengers' headquarters, where Vision proposes Maximoff destroy the Mind Stone."

or

• "In Scotland, Midnight and Glaive ambush Wanda Maximoff and Vision. They are rescued by Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Sam Wilson, and seek shelter with James Rhodes at Avengers headquarters. Vision offers to sacrifice himself by proposing Maximoff destroy the Mind Stone in his forehead to keep Thanos from retrieving it. Rogers suggests they travel to Wakanda, which may have the resources to remove the Stone without destroying Vision."

Aside from my feeling this should remain a standalone paragraph, I think there are points in the adamstom97 version that belong. May I propose this melding:

• "In Scotland, Midnight and Glaive ambush Wanda Maximoff and Vision, who is integrally connected to the Mind Stone in his forehead. Former Avengers Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Sam Wilson rescue their comrades then take shelter with James Rhodes at Avengers headquarters. Vision offers to sacrifice himself by proposing Maximoff destroy the stone. Rogers suggests they travel to Wakanda, which may have the resources to remove it without destroying Vision."

• "Gamora takes him to the planet Vormir where Red Skull serves as the keeper of the Soul Stone. Red Skull informs Thanos that he must sacrifice someone he loves, and Thanos is granted the Soul Stone after reluctantly throwing Gamora to her death."

or

• Thanos takes Gamora to Vormir, a planet where Red Skull, keeper of the Soul Stone, informs him the stone can only be retrieved by sacrificing someone he loves. Thanos reluctantly throws Gamora to her death, granting him the Soul Stone."

I think adamstom97 is correct that Gamora takes Thanos (or perhaps "Gamora accompanies Thanos") rather than "Thanos takes Gamora." However, I think we need to state Vormir is a planet and not a city or something else. "serves as the keeper of the Soul Stone" is eight words while "keeper of the Soul Stone" says the same thing in five words. I also think the second version is more succinct since it doesn't say "Red Skull" twice. Also, "is granted" is passive voice, while "granting him" is active voice.

The remainder has the same issue of succinctness versus a wordier description. I don't think we need to quote dialog from the movie. And there are other issues: Saying "Before Thor can kill him with Stormbreaker" doesn't specify that Thor seriously wounded him with Stormbreaker, thus demonstrating Stormbreaker may indeed have the power to kill Thanos, an important point. And I'm not sure why we'd remove the post-credits scene, which we include for all other MCU movies.

What do our fellow editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the above assessment. I don't think we have to worry about being succinct *that* much, as the film is well over two hours in length, and the length of the plot summary seems acceptable to me. The issue is whether the wordier description provides relevant information that a shorter version does not.  cjquines  (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As my response to those thoughts, I first want to point out that my version is more succinct/less wordy, which was part of my intention from the start (I got the word count down quite a bit from the version I first started working on). I want to reiterate that I am sympathetic with those who have worked hard on this summary before I got here, but multiple people working on something does not mean it cannot be improved further and I believe all of my changes are improvements:

1. I know that in other MCU articles we mention its relation to other films with notes to further explain/support that, but it is not suitable here. The film begins with all of the heroes in different places based on how their previous films ended and it just doesn't make sense to try and recap all of those here. It makes even less sense to single out just one, Ragnarok, particularly when the destruction of Asgard has little bearing on the plot of this film. Does Thanos begin his quest because of the events of Ragnarok? The film does not indicate that. So the whole opening of the plot needed to be changed, and what is relevant to the plot of this film is that Thanos has already retrieved the Power Stone. We don't need to say that it was a week ago (which is supported in the film btw) but we should still begin by saying "After Thanos and his adoptive children..." It is also redundant to introduce that they are there to get the Space Stone when we are just going to describe them doing it within a couple of lines.
2. Heimdall was already dying, which is covered by us saying that everyone was being killed, so signalling him as an exception from the previous sentence just to turn around and say he is killed when he was already dying to begin with is just unnecessarily wordy.
3. I felt it was an obvious improvement to note that Loki is killed after the Space Stone is taken (it makes more sense and is what actually happened), and I feel like it is reasonably natural to just say that they obliterate the ship without the reader believing that they committed suicide. But perhaps that is just me.
4. The only mention of Wong in the plot summary is that he is at the Sanctum, and that he stays there. It has no impact on the plot, and we shouldn't be shoe-horning characters into the summary just so they can get a mention. As for Bruce Banner being the "human form", I don't think it is true to say "we've no reason to think that person isn't human" when the movie is full of aliens and we just described something quite un-humanlike. I wouldn't be against re-adding something about Thanos's goals, but I just wanted to avoid it too much there since in other places we are assuming that characters already know what is going on.
5. My problem with your compromise is the mention of Wakanda; it is redundant to say they want to go to Wakanda and then the next thing about them is that they are arriving at Wakanda. We should only be saying the latter.
6. I think I would be happy with the current version if the first part was changed to "Gamora takes him". The rest of the changes were just trying to be less wordy, but there isn't much wiggle-room here.
7. The direct quote I used was important, I feel, because it is important to note that Strange did what he did because it is part of the one future he saw where they win, but that is not explicit in the film so we can't really infer that ourselves here. Using the quote avoids OR while still converying that important point.
8. I know seeing a massive axe in someone's chest appears to be a major wound, but the film never really indicates that this is the case. There are no repercussions for this in the film at any point since the appearances of Thanos after that moment do not show him in any serious pain or anything. What is important in that scene is that Thor is unable to kill him, so that is what needs to be mentioned.
9. As has been discussed in several places (you may not have been aware of this though, so I'll try to give a full explanation) we do not just include stuff from post-credit scenes for the sake of it. From memory, the last discussion I had on this led to a consensus in that we first treat the scene as if it was just part of the film (is it important to the plot or just a joke?) and then if it is decided to add it to the plot summary, we only label it as being a post-credit scene if that fact is notable (i.e. if the scene actually has nothing to do with the rest of the plot and has been clearly added on as an extra scene). In this case, the post-credit scene is noteworthy (it isn't just a joke or something) but it doesn't not have to be labelled as a post-credits scene as it quite naturally fits into the rest of the plot where I mentioned it in my version. The fact that it is after the credits and what that means can be discussed in the production section, but as far as this summary is concerned it fits quite nicely with the mention of other character disintegrations. This is another case of avoiding redundancy—why mention that characters are disintegrating, then move on to other stuff, and then come back and say "back when people were disintegrating, these other people did as well, and..."

I hope those all gave you a better idea of where I was coming from. I wasn't just randomly changing things because I wanted to write my own version of the plot summary, all of my changes have justification and they add up to a more succinct and accurate summary. And I do not intend for this to be the final version either, as I'm sure it will change quite a bit over the coming weeks. But for now, I do believe my version is better and should be reimplemented so that work can carry on from that stronger foundation. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think adamstom97 is correct that Gamora takes Thanos (or perhaps "Gamora accompanies Thanos") rather than "Thanos takes Gamora."

The film makes it pretty clear that Gamora does not go willingly. To say she takes Thanos implies she is allied with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

She is guiding him there since she knows where to go and he does not, so "Gamora takes Thanos" is correct even if she was reluctant in doing so. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: First, thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned replies. Would it be alright to number your points in the 05:49, 27 April 2018 response? That way I think we could respond without copy-pasting the wording to which we're responding. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Just pinging again to see if you might want to number the points or if it's OK for me to do it.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Tenebrae, I missed your first ping. I think I have set up numbers correctly above. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Just a bump in case you missed my last comment. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Okey-doke! Gimme a couple minutes!   :)   --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

1. The redundancy about the Space Stone looks like it's been addressed in the interim. Space Stone is just mentioned once. Power Stone retrieval now opens the plot.
2. We don't actually know that Heimdall was dying — Thor was injured and wasn't dying, for instance. In any case, the current plot doesn't mention him being injured or dying, just powerless to stop Thanos, and his death is mentioned —although for no good reason I can imagine, in passive voice ("being killed" — why not just be specific and say who kills him?)
3. The current plot garbles the sequence of events, saying Loki is powerless to stop Thanos from taking the Space Stone because he was been killed. No: Loki is very much alive when Thanos takes the Space Stone. And also, saying that one is powerless to stop someone because one is dead is ridiculous phrasing (though not not yours, obviously). I'll go in and un-garble this and if it still seems off to you, we can re-address it.
4. I agree about the Wong overwriting, and it looks like editors have trimmed that already. I still don't believe we need to specify Bruce Banner is human any more than we specify Peter Parker or Steve Rogers are human. Yes, the film is filled with aliens, but they have names like "Cull Obsidian" and "Ebony Maw." I don't think the average reader would have any reason to think a character with a prosaic, everyday name is not human.
5. Respectfully disagree. If they arrive in Wakanda without the reason for it being set up beforehand, then it seems like they just went somewhere arbitrarily, or for a reason that needed to be secret in the plot at that point.
6. Someone edited it to say just "travel to Vormir", which is both accurate and avoids the tangential issue of who-takes-who.
7. When Stark asks in how many futures do the anti-Thanos forces win, Strange says one. I guess the passage could read "and states there is only one in which the heroes win." I don't think there's inference in stating the corollary ("in which Thanos loses"), but personally, I'm OK with either.
8. You might be right regarding "Despite being severely wounded by Thor." To me, he very much looks seriously wounded, judging from his pained expressions and his halting speech. But that may be interpretive, since he's played possum earlier in the film. What do other editors think?
9. I think since the Fury/Hill scene comes literally after all the credits, calling it a post-credit scene is fair in this case.

So, those are my thoughts. Other editors, jump in here! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond Tenebrae. I'm thinking now that because of how much the summary has changed since this discussion began it probably isn't worth worrying about my old version too much now. Would you have a problem if I just started editing parts of the summary now as usual (I have been avoiding it to not appear to be edit warring)? I will take all you have said here into account and attempt to make smaller changes that can be reverted/challenged rather than a big change like I did previously. That will also hopefully help bring more eyes to specific issues since there hasn't been much interest shown here. I will start new, dedicated discussions for specific issues where necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah, we're all free to edit anything not currently under active discussion, and I think we've discussed everything pretty thoroughly! You're right, the plot seems to have stabilized and the edits all seem to be polish-up tweaking. Onward! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

197.226.207.92 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are spoilers at the end of the plot about the post credit scene.

 Not done as per WP:SPOILER.  cjquines  (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

There are a hell lot of stupid grammatical mistakes in the current plot description. Don't know how that ended up on wikipedia. I can't edit the exact plot content, so just want to suggest to the author/publisher to at-least sanitize what is presented here. 202.140.38.22 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was the spoiler for the post-credit scene removed...

...in this diff? The comment from User:Adamstom.97 says: "Also removing badly/incorrectly formatted references." I was under the impression that if the references were formatted incorrectly, one corrected the formatting, instead of taking the lazy option of simply removing them. I added the references using the template reference tool provied by Wikipedia editing tool. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 10:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason they were incorrect is that there should not be a whole lot of references in the plot summary. If there is something that really needs a third party reference then it should be discussed and included with consensus. But that isn't necessary here. The plot summary will work just fine with what can actually be seen onscreen, and then a note could be added to expand on that with a reliable source if required. You can feel free to do that, or I or someone else will sort it out in due time. But don't just dump a whole lot of unnecessary references in the plot summary and expect others to clean it up for you. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So your edit summary was incorrect? It seems that there was no issue with the reference format, but their presence itself was the issue. Can you refer me to the guideline which says there should not be references in the plot summary of movies? Also, I felt the need to add references as another user had removed the spoiler because they believed it was original research and lacked secondary sources. I added secondary references to leave no doubt about the accuracy of the spoiler. I strongly believe that linking the post-credit scene to Captain Marvel is highly useful. I did feel free to re-instate the wikilink to Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers, but you removed that as well, and provided no reasons for that. I am getting the feeling that you are the owner of this article, and so I will cease my editing, and go back to my wiki-exile. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, bye. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well he's far from wrong, you and some other people who edit MCU articles regularly really seem to take ownership pretty often.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the details of the insignia being Captain Marvel's and made it into a footnote. This is how post credit Easter Egg details have been handled in previous MCU films. - Richiekim (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

the rundime for the movie mentioned is wrong its 160min not 149min Guile96 (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The source currently in the article gives a different figure. There is no evidence that it is wrong, only that it contradicts your source. Other sources will need to be provided to resolve the conflicting claims. Betty Logan (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:Citing IMDb which is the source for the graph. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Page request...

Is there a list of all IMAX movies worldwide, on wikipedia? (not upscaled but full IMAX resolution)  Retrorick wikipedia  talk  07:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

95 million or 135 million

Avengers infinity war movie showing 95 million dollar, but in description showing 135 million dollar. Sunilhembram25 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

India: First day gross:

The figure given for the first day's take in India is $310 million when the total worldwide gross is only $135 million as at this hour (UTC 13:44) on 28 April 2018. Surely that should be Indian Rupees or what? Would someone kindly correct this figure so that it jives with the total. Thanks. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Comic influences

This seems questionable. The source says the obvious influences are "Infinity Gauntlet", "Infinity" and "Secret Avengers", but it quotes Joe Russo as saying Certainly the Starlin book was our jumping-off point. This seems problematic as popular misconception of the "Infinity Gauntlet" story has it involving Thanos's quest for the gems, so it's entirely possible that during pre-release promotion for the film they were deliberately leading the public on in thinking that the storyline was influenced by the more famous comic book that few people have actually read, rather than the much less famous comic that even fewer people have actually read: the above quote could just as easily be taken as referring to Thanos Quest (also written by Starlin), and that would make more sense in light of what actually happens in the movie, which ends where the "Infinity Gauntlet" comic begins. It seems like we are quoting fan misinterpretation of a deliberately misleading quote given by the director. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Lets hear what others have to say. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sun rise, sunset

The Bustle cite is factually incorrect: Thanos isn't watching a sunset. He says specifically to Dr. Strange on Titan that he is going "to watch the sun rise on a grateful universe." Perhaps the best option would be for the plot synopsis to avoid what the sun is purportedly doing. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it has been changed already. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot section grammar/syntax change.

Small change needed at following line:

"Despite being severely wounded by Thor, Thanos able activate sthe Infinity Gauntlet and teleports away."

I'd probably change it to something like:

"Despite being severely wounded by Thor, Thanos snaps his fingers (maybe link to the Infinity Gauntlet plot section? Idk) to activate the Infinity Gauntlet, and teleports away."

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:4401:6420:5c45:f5f8:458d:842b (talk)

Reception section

This section really should be expanded a lot, there is not a single mention of Thanos reception, the character has been built up for years and there have been tons of critics who have talked about the characters portrayal. And there should be some stuff about the other actors and characters as well.★Trekker (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure who crafted the reception section as it now, but you are more than welcome to WP:BEBOLD and pull info from the reviews already to expand on this stuff. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't like how we build the section off RT but cite individual reviews as though that was where we got the information. Chang's review, for example, is "mixed", but we present a positive-sounding quote from it as evidence that he was down on the film, because this is what RT clumsily did. We really should b quoting the things that various critics liked and didn't like, rather than presenting it as a "fresh" versus "rotten" dichotomy, and not quoting passages that out of context, frankly, are gibberish. No sane human being could, for example, make sense of the Gleiberman quote we currently give or justify our implying it is a "thumbs up" where the Chang quote is a "thumbs down"; when I go to a theme park I like to try as many rides as possible, not wait in line for certain rides three times over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with either of you regarding how the section is currently presented. I personally and spending my time focusing on other aspects to improve and maintain so I am not giving this section much thought at the time being. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should have sub-headers for the reception section, to split off the agregators form the text reviews? Or something like that.★Trekker (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

See, my problem is actually the "stealth" aggregator citations: the stuff attributed to the text reviews is clearly taken from the no-context quotations of said reviews given on RottenTomatoes. With a film like this where virtually all the reviews are mixed in their assessments of various aspects of the film but none of them are written in the naive hope that they would actually influence others to watch or not watch the film, I think it would make a lot more sense to break it down into paragraphs on, say, reception of the character of Thanos (Brolin's performance, CG animation, differences from how the character was portrayed in the previous films, comparison to source material), reception of how the other characters were portayed, reception of the story/plot, reaction to the "ending" (and the fact that it was clearly not an ending but a "To be continued in Part II" even if it's no longer officially being called Part II), reaction to the humour/action, reaction to the fridging of Gamora and the implied off-screen deaths of the the entire supporting casts of Thor: Ragnarok and Guardians of the Galaxy, critics pointing out how out-of-character it is for Disney/Marvel to make a deliberate move that would likely send their target audience (children) home in tears, etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Good to see we are being unbiased here... adamstom97 (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC) @Adamstom.97: Why are you here? Did you just come here to insult me for thinking this article has a problem and proposing a creative solution to the problem that you don't agree with because you almost never agree with anything I do or say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Nope, I'm here to point out that we are writing an encyclopaedia article not Hijiri's blog. Proposing a solution to a problem is fine, just remember that this isn't the place to push your own opinions. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Everything I wrote above comes from reviews of the film I've read/seen, and none of it is (exclusively) my own opinion. The fact that most of it is neutral "some critics said this, others disagreed" would make it impossible for it to be just my opinion. I have not stated my personal opinion on the film anywhere on-wiki, unlike you. I will now, if you like: I liked it, better than Age of Ultron and Spider-Man: Homecoming, but not as good as The Avengers, Guardians 2, Thor: Ragnarok or Black Panther. As for what critics thought about specific aspects of the film, which I listed above, I agree with some and not others; the only one that I really agree with, very much annoyed me, and I find it odd that more critics didn't notice it, is the bit about Valkyrie being presumably killed off-screen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC) But this is an article talk page -- why are you forcing me to defend a personal opinion I didn't even express? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC) I didn't force you to do anything. A few of the things you listed I had not come across as common criticisms myself, and the parenthetical about the target audience was pretty pointed. It just didn't come across as objective when I saw it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) To say these films are targeted at children is just to cite an objective fact. I'm coming up on my thirtieth birthday and I still love them, but that doesn't change it. They make most of their money of merchandising targeted exclusively at children, and probably a goodly portion of their box office revenue comes from parents taking their children to them, which is why they generally aim for a PG-13 rating in the US. That the film's ending probably sent a significant portion of said target audience home in tears is something I've seen in multiple (spoiler sections of) reviews of the film, notably those of RedLetterMedia and ScreenJunkies, and pointing out that the film probably made kids cry would not be as meaningful to someone who didn't understand that the film was targeted primarily at kids (something the article doesn't presently point out explicitly). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC) That's your opinion. I for one would not take children to many of these films given the mature-nature of a lot of their content, and I doubt I am the only one that feels that way. Anyway, this is a stupid conversation that I really don't want to have. I'm sorry I misinterpreted your original comments and got this whole thing started. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Just so you all I was already planning on fleshing this section out some more on Monday.—-00:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

please add the MPAA rating

please add the MPAA rating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawtyshouse (talk • contribs)

Marvel Recreated ‘Aa Dekhe Zara’ For Avengers: Infinity War

Add This Link In Reference Marvel Recreated ‘Aa Dekhe Zara’ For Avengers: Infinity War 2405:204:A507:8AC5:C8BD:670B:F931:F8B (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@2405:204:A507:8AC5:C8BD:670B:F931:F8B: Sorry, but no. You need to make a clear request for a content addition to the article, not just a link with a request that its contents be included in some fashion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't actually read the article provided in the link, but if it is the same Aa Dekhe Zara as this one, it seems to be a pretty specious claim. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: It's talking about a song used in the Hindi trailer for the film, which is believable, but entirely trivial. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My experiences working on other film articles—Skyfall in particular—have taught me that there are very few reliable sources related to the Indian film industry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the same is true of classical Japanese literature if one only relies on English-language sources. That caveat always needs to be added. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You’ll buy a ticket to “Avengers: Infinity War” because it’s April

[10] some box office analysis --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

i want to say that the blue and red star insignia in the post-credits scene is of CAPTAIN MARVEL 82.14.212.189 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Already included in the footnote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

In the Release section, change "It was released in most countries worldwide, including the United States, on April 27, 2018, with a few debuts beginning as early as April 25,[108] and was be shown in IMAX and 3D on select screens." to "It was released in most countries worldwide, including the United States, on April 27, 2018, with a few debuts beginning as early as April 25,[108] and was shown in IMAX and 3D on select screens."

The "be" between "was" and "shown" isn't needed. Somecdnguy4 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Proxima Midnight actor

This page says that Carrie Coon both voiced and performed motion capture for Proxima Midnight, and the source confirms she voiced and did facial motion capture, but the cast list on IMDB also lists Monique Ganderton as "on set Proxima Midnight" in the same way Sean Gunn is the "on set Rocket" and Bradley Cooper does the voice. Should this be mentioned in the article? I am not sure if it counts as acting but I also don't think it is fair to say Carrie Coon was the sole performer for Proxima Midnight. 2601:18A:C500:9583:2971:D8C1:DE0B:C7FE (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No opinion on this, but just to preemptively shoot down the "IMDb is not a reliable source" argument, it's not just IMDb.[11][comicbook.com/marvel/2018/02/12/marvel-cinematic-universe-future-characters/#3] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If it is reliably sourced then I don't see why it shouldn't be added. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm seeing Monique Ganderton in the credits, so I'm in support of this inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Plot synopsis error

The plot references stark and parker defeating maw twice Declanhx (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

The plot's ending should state that Wanda Maximoff destroyed the Mind Stone but Thanos reversed time with the Time Stone and then took the Stone from Vision.. Hsb rash54 (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Would like to request a change when its said Thanos uses the Gauntlet, in the movie we can see he uses it but the Gauntlet sustains some kind of damage too.. I feel its worthy to be written in plot.. Only suggesting..

 Not done — Thanos recovers the Mind Stone; it doesn't really matter how he achieves it. Good writing might be specific, but we also need to observe the maximun word count of 700 words. There are several unresolved plot threads that are summarised without specifics (ie Strange giving the Time Stone up without a fight despite his willingess to sacrifice Stark and Parker); to go into this one may give undue weight to this one episode. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: FWIW, it's pretty heavy-handedly implied that Strange planned out exactly the string of events that would lead to their victory, and that plan required Stark being alive. He first said he wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice Starker, then he looked into the future and saw that there was only one possible way out of several million that they could win, after that willingly gave up the stone to keep Stark alive, then finally with his dying breath explicitly said there was no other way. Not saying this belongs in our uncited plot summary at this time, of course; just that it will almost certainly be mentioned in the summary for the next film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: that's my point. The whole plot line is clearly set up in the film—my guess is that Strange subconsciously planted the idea of saving Stark in Thanos' mind so that when Thanos activated the Gauntlet, Stark was unwittingly spared, thus making his Thanos' killing of half the universe less than random—but we cannot detail it because of the word count and also because it's speculative. Likewise, I suspect Thanos' use of the Time Stone will come into play; he only used it locally to restore the Mind Stone. The exposition about the nature of the stones say that they are essential to exintence, so it is implied that a new singularity would be created to replace the Mind Stone, but Thanos didn't undo its creation when he restored the original Mind Stone. Again, it's (potentially) a key plot point, but we cannot cover it in the article either. Likewise, we don't even know that Strange is dead. It could all be an illusion for Stark's benefit so that when Stark goes after Thanos, Thanos cannot use the Mind Stone to realise that Strange is alive and going after the new singularity.

The point is that there are a lot of unresolved potential plot points that will have renewed significance with the sequel. We cannot over-emphasise them because we cannot know what is significant and what is not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I think the nature of the mass death at the end of the film is really inconsistent. We're told that it's random and unprejudiced, which should mean everyone had a 50/50 chance of surviving, but then GotG1 had the Collector quite explicitly stated that Groot was the only known member of his species, so Thanos's humanitarian goal apparently doesn't lead him to avoid genocide by killing 50% of every species but leaving a sustainable population (even when, as with Groot, there's really no reason to believe killing him would free up food resources as much as any other creature), but that leads me to believe that it was completely random and Thanos did not choose who lived and who died: chances are this question will not be explicitly addressed in the second part and we'll just be left to assume they lucked out that Stark survived.

More on topic, I think if it can be sourced (and Strange's motivation for flip-flopping on whether Stark's life is more valuable than the Time Stone definitely can be) then it probably could be addressed somewhere within the article, perhaps in an "Analysis" section. Realistically speaking, the 400-700 word limit on plot summaries assumes the standard practice (a practice I don't personally like) of writing uncited plot summaries implicitly attributed to the works themselves. I'm not suggesting the plot summary section of this article be sourced and expanded, just that the guidelines need to be interpreted in light of themselves.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: eh, I was unmoved by the ending. The dead characters fell into three categories: those that are riduculously powerful (Vision and Wanda), those that Marvel have clearly run out of things for them to do (Winter Soldier), and major characters from four major franchises (Strange, T'Challa, Spider-Man and most of the GotG crew), two of which have already had sequels announced. Call me a cynic, but (ironically) I think it was the MCU's House of M.

Anyway, FILMPLOT says we shouldn't top 700 words except in rare circumstances. Despite the lengthy lists of characters, we have (at last count) manages to bring it in pretty close to 700 words. We've demonstrated that we can do it, which makes it harder to justify going over 700. The section might need a re-write a year from now in light of what is relevant to the sequel, but I have noticed the plot section has largely stabilised. I think we've got the best version we're going to get. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(Eh. I think it was a cynical trick to make people think it's a happy ending when the next film resurrects everyone whose actors want to renew their contracts and kills off everyone else. The weird thing is they've written in an excuse to not have Downey come back for more films but not kill off his character, but will probably do the latter anyway. The supporting cast from Thor are not coming back because that "trilogy" has concluded, but they're not going to make the next Guardians film all about Quill's bitter/mopey/depressing quest for revenge for the death of Gamorra, so she's definitely coming back (probably in the exact same way as Android 18 from Dragon Ball - the Gauntlet and/or Soul Stone will break/fail/be taken from Thanos and the one he killed so he could have it would come back). But children don't watch release schedules or think about contracts and the like, so they probably think everyone's just dead and gone.)

Right now Marvel are explicitly defying their original announcement of this film as a "part one of two" but the ending made clear that the actual content of the film didn't change from being a part one. They probably won't step back their "official" line on this point even after part two is released, but secondary sources are already overwhelmingly going against them on this, so once part two comes out we should probably just do what the secondary sources do and treat them as two parts of the same film -- not familiar with how we dealt with Deathly Hallows, Mockingjay or the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but those might theoretically be a good model.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, there is a chance that the two-parter element used to be even more explicit and they have significantly toned it down in the final product. Also, I think there is a valid argument to be made that the film does have a complete story, as much as a film in an interconnected franchise like this could. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It does have a complete story ... until the post-credits scene. If Captain Marvel is as powerful as Feige says she is (and if that is indeed Adam Warlock in the sarcophagus at the end of GotGv2), then that begs the question of why Fury didn't call upon her as soon as he got wind of Thanos seeking the Infinity Stones. From a narrative view, it falls apart there.

On the subject of being an individual story with a sequel or one half of a bigger whole, it's The Man with the Golden Gun in reverse. EON Productions clearly has two scripts that they merged together with minimal fuss (wasting Christopher Lee's talent); here, Marvel appear to have had one big story that they split in two, but haven't done enough to separate them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it's probably the fact that I've seen every other film in the interconnected series that left me uneasy with the "ending" of this one -- every single MCU film up to this point has had cut out on an upbeat note, whereas this one had the bad guy smiling, one of the good guys trapped on an alien planet with a scared, crying child in his arms, and most of the other good guys realizing to their horror what had just happened. It's not so much unresolved plot threads (which The Incredible Hulk and Civil War both had in abundance) as the fact that this is tonally inconsistent with how these movies typically end: I will be incredibly surprised if the film that was originally slated as part two of this film doesn't end in a more typically "Marvel" fashion.

My response to the rest got really long and NOTFORUM-ish, so taking it to PM's talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the NOTFORUM element, largely because this is the eighteenth episode of an ongoing story and there is narurally a question of how to handle the infinite number of connections between the films. The only other franchise I can think of is the James Bond series and that is very episodic, so the issue doesn't arise there.

And yes, the ending is downbeat, but so too was the ending of The Empire Strikes Back and that's an exceptional film (though mostly for technical film-making reasons). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

People often say that about Empire, but it really isn't true; the final shot of the film, with its inspiring music and Luke et al looking out into space is at worst bittersweet, and the music that plays over the end credits is no different than the rest of the Star Wars films. Most MCU films, on the other hand, close on either a pop/rock song or an upbeat heroic melody, while this is radically different: its closing sequences and end credit music feel more tonally in-line with the dark second-act revelation in the middle of one of the other MCU films. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks — your edits over-emphasise the use of the time stone. It does not matter how Thanos gets the mind stone, only that he does. Emphasising implies significance for the next film, which is speculative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see no-one has been able to justify the continued inclusion of this. All it does is repeat something something already established in the plot section (that taking the mind stone will kill Vision) and emphasise the method Thanos uses to get the mind stone; there is no detail on his crushing the Tesseract or being granted the soul stone through some mystical process. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the mystical process is covered in the summary. It kinda needs to be, since the fridging of Gamora is an important plot point in itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

We can probably make an exception there because it is the first time the soul stone appears in the canon. But we don't really detail how he gets the other five—the power and reality stones are acquired off-screen, the time stone is taken from Strange, and the space stone is acquired by crushing the Tesseract. The lengthy description of using the time stone to get the mind stone only really restates that taking the mind stone from Vision will kill him and by placing such emphasis on it, we imply that there is some special significance to the time and mind stones beyond completing the gauntlet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"[Thanos's] children"?

[12] @Brojam: Is it? I have only seen the film once so far, but if I heard that I suspect it was in a context where it sounded "metaphorical" (similar to "children of God") and so I forgot about it. Anyway, if they are not literally born of his seed (and they clearly are not), isn't calling them "henchmen" better than calling them by the in-universe term "children"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ebony Maw says something along the lines of "die at the hands of the Children of Thanos" to Doctor Strange. - Brojam (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if "Children of Thanos" is a proper name, then isn't "his children" wrong? And isn't it just an in-universe name for an elite group of henchmen? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree, henchmen is the better term in the plot section. It’s explained a little better the cast section.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I, on the otherhand, would disagree. They are describe, both in the film and in production and marketing material released prior, as the Children of Thanos, which is a title. Since a title is given, it makes sense to use that title rather than to simply call them henchmen (especially when you consider the fact that half of them aren't even men). "His children", would be wrong, yes, but "his Children" (capital 'C') is correct. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't have space in the plot section to explain the difference between children and Children. I assume most people would just think its a typo. Also 1 out 4 isn't half besides henchmen can describe both men and woman like policemen, actor, or mankind. Henchmen is both simple and accurate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Should just add that theoretically, with infinite space, we could define "Children of Thanos" inline as referring to an elite group of henchmen, but lacking that we should just refer to them as henchmen. Expecting our readers to have prior knowledge of "both ... the film and ... production and marketing material released prior" for the wording we use to make sense to them is wrong on a number of levels. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to explain the difference within the plot section, as the note attached to the term did a sufficient enough job. There is also the fact to consider that Thanos considers the Children to be his children, and exclusively refers to them in familial terms (i.e. "my daughter", "your sister", "my children"), since he has adopted them. @TriiipleThreat: You also forget that both Gamora and Nebula are Children of Thanos, also (3 of 6). It is almost irrelevant that they serve him in a manner similar to that of a henchman, a term which I feel better suits both Ronan and Loki before their betrayals. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

We could annotate everything in the plot summary if we wanted to, but that's a really bad idea. He can refer to his henchmen as his children, but that doesn't mean they are not still his henchmen. The quotes you give just emphasize another problem: they tend to refer more to Gamora and Nebula, but within the plot summary when we used it it referred specifically to the subset of the Children of Thanos who are loyal to him; referring to the group of henchmen the heroes in this film fight by a term that also (in fact more prominently) covers other characters is problematic. Ronan and Loki never functioned as "henchmen" the way that word is normally used in Wikipedia plot summaries, as they were the primary antagonists of their films. (Ronan was really more of an "ally" in-universe anyway, and Loki never betrayed Thanos; he was defeated. But that's completely irrelevant.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you guys are over thinking this, especially for the plot section where we don't need that much detail. Calling them the "Children of Thanos" is inline with what the film calls them and gets the point across, and henchmen works just fine as an alternative if we want to avoid making it sound like they are his actual children (which they do not appear to be). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Might we replace "henchmen" with "lieutenants" or something else? "Henchmen" sounds like the guys helping the Joker rob a bank.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem with that. Honestly I was thinking less about the Joker and more about the bad guys Piccolo and Krillin fight before the big bad comes down and Goku has to step in in the Dragon Ball Z movies. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m fine with that as well if it makes everyone feel better. Although henchmen is how they are discribed by third-party sources. Actually the DBZ comparison IMHO is pretty accurate, none of them seemed that capable on their own except maybe Ebony Maw.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Marvel’s “Avengers: Infinity War” just made history

Marvel’s “Avengers: Infinity War” just made history [13] possible source --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Updated Budget

(Just because the other Budget thread is a few weeks old and very deep) here’s this article from Forbes (dated 4/27) that lists Disney as spending $321 million on the film. Since this is first concrete figure given (opposed to “upwards of $400 million” or “around $300 million”) I think it’s best to list $321M as the budget in the infobox. TropicAces (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"This came to $321.2 million (£247.7 million) as I recently reported for The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper", this is not a new source. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, there is no contradiction here. Sylt has simply clarified the dollar equivalent of his original figure (given in pounds sterling). As I pointed out at #Budget the £248 million converted to a figure between $300–360 million, and the $321 million is completely consistent with that. Betty Logan (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried using that number when it reported in the Telegraph. At the time, other editors argued that the company filings show spending reported through a certain date, and not the final budget. So while it is a concrete number now, it will change when they do their next filings. So I think a range that leave the $400 million figure is appropriate. Eventually, the filings may show they spent more than that. Maybe tweak the range to list $321 at the low end of the range? Foodles42 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If that is the case then the budget could conceivably go over $400 million, so perhaps "$321+ million" might be a better representation? Either way, I agree that $321 million is pretty much the minimum figure, and if it changes it is only going to go higher. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Ragnarok

Hoping to get some more editors in a discussion I began among a huge wall of text above, this is about Ragnarok note in the first paragraph of the plot summary. I know we often do this to note where these films come in relation to others, but the only such timelines we have been given for this film are for the time since Civil War and Guardians Vol. 2, so this note is not justified in the usual way. That must mean it is particularly important to note, but I can't see how. All of the previous Phase 3 films have left their characters in ways that affect the beginning of this film (Strange protecting the Time Stone in New York, Parker turning down the Avengers and returning to school, T'Challa opening Wakanda's borders, etc.) and we don't have additional explanation or notes for any of them. We are just assuming that people know who the characters are and can follow along (sort of how the film does). So why does Ragnarok have to be special? If we remove the note and just say the ship is carrying "the last survivors of Asgard" then that covers what we need for the plot to make sense, and anyone unfamiliar with that will have to find out more in the same way that they have to find out more for all of the other characters mentioned in the summary. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hulk

why Hulk was even on the image when he wasn't on the movie? Davidtran84 (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope. He appears in the movie onscreen even poster. 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Posters are misleading. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing a teaser poster that showed Ant-Man. As for our infobox image: we don't really have a choice. In 100 years or whenever the film enters the public domain, maybe we'll be able to use an iconic still from the film itself, but right now we are bound to a fair use promotional image, however inaccurate it is to the actual film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Carl Tristan Orense: It's kinda off-topic for us, but the promotional materials for this film definitely lied about the Hulk's presence in the climactic battle.[14] Yes, he was in a very brief sequence at the very start of the film, in which he was immediately beaten down, but that is not what the poster, trailers, etc. imply. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Carl Tristan Orense: did you already watch the movie lol?no offense, like I was quite surprised, that it turned out hulk didn't appear longer Davidtran84 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Character descriptions in cast list definitely need to be updated or expunged

At the outset of this film, "the Avengers" don't exist as an entity so every entry that describes a character thus is wrong; calling Thor the king of Asgard is extremely iffy as he was never formally enthroned (Black Panther's finale basically hinged on the legitimacy of a monarch involving formal ritual, and the Thor films made it clear that Asgard is no different; we also probably shouldn't be assuming fictional countries work differently from real ones) and Asgard also doesn't exist at any point in this film. I've been saying for years that these unsourced blurbs needed to go (and we needed to stop attaching citations to them as though they were not unsourced), and here these are particularly egregious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Thor: Ragnarok's conclusion makes clear that Thor is the king of Asgard. Both Thor and Hela have a claim to the throne, and following the death of Hela, Thor is the only one with a legitimate claim – a claim which he acts upon by sitting in the "throne" aboard the Asgardian refugee ship. Thor also remarks that Asgard isn't a place, "Asgard is a people." Finally, the Avengers as an organisation do still exist, albeit bereft of membership following the events of Civil War, so it is not incorrect to label its members and former members as such. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Both Thor and Hela have a claim to the throne, and following the death of Hela, Thor is the only one with a legitimate claim – a claim which he acts upon by sitting in the "throne" aboard the Asgardian refugee ship. That's not how monarchies in the real world typically work, and it's not apparently how Asgardian succession works in the films. I have only seen the film once (stupid Japanese movie theatres...) so I don't remember if they actually said that Thor was the new king of Asgard, but given that within a few minutes of this film's opening Thor is literally the last Asgardian the title is at best meaningless, accurate or no. But it doesn't really matter whether these descriptions are accurate according to my or your opinion -- if reliable sources don't describe the characters as they appear in this film that way we probably shouldn't. And we definitely shouldn't be tagging citations onto them when the citations are really for the claim that the actor (not even necessarily the character...) appears in the film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

How a monarchy work depends greatly on it's specific laws of succession - both Hela and Thor had a legitimate claim to Odin's throne (unlike Loki), and both exercised their claims. Also, it's worth noting that Thanos only wiped out half of the surviving Asgardians - whilst that may not mean much within the context of the story going forward, it does mean that he is still the king of a people. I think first and foremost we need to consider the title of the film - it is call "Avengers," and so it makes sense, to me, that they are still considered to be Avengers within the context of the story. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

both Hela and Thor had a legitimate claim to Odin's throne (unlike Loki) Having a "claim" is not the same as actually being king, and the claim that Loki did not have a legitimate claim is groundless; the first Thor film made it pretty clear that Odin could name his own successor whether or not said successor was his biological offspring. Conversely, it was never implied that Asgardian succession was egalitarian between men and women or that women could succeed at all -- Hela seized the throne by force, so her legitimacy was never addressed. Heck, Hela not apparently being the legitimate child of Odin and Frigg might also have been an issue. But that's all completely irrelevant, since calling someone a king just because you feel they are the last surviving person with a claim to kingship is OR. Thanos only wiped out half of the surviving Asgardians Citation needed? Nothing implied it was part of his grand plan - he was after the stone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Josh Brolin to be credited first

I dont understand the sequence in which the cast is written. It says it is how it is mentioned on the poster. Is it even compulsory to follow the poster. The film was absolutely a thanos film and Josh Brolin being a senior actor should be given credits first and his name on the cast should be on the top — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthu65 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film#Parameters says: "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release." It's a good way to avoid editors reverting eachother or spending time arguing about who they think are more important. Josh Brolin only does voice and motion capture for a CGI character. If the film had actually shown him then I guess he would have been listed earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Brolin and Chris Pratt got special credits at the end of the cast list to help them stand out a bit.. but your right the list should be in credits order. Spanneraol (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Critical reception

In my understanding, it is a bit too disproportionately negative. Or rather, it's equally balanced. I understand that the film has received some criticism but not enough to warrant a paragraph about the negative reception that is as big as the paragraph about the positive reception. I am not sure if it's supposed to be perfectly balanced in Wikipedia articles as well, so I thought I should leave a note. 2402:8100:3981:9107:C82:D2F5:C988:3ABF (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph covers the distribution of reviews. The rest of the paragraphs are not meant reflect that distribution but to cover the common points of praise or criticism found throughout many of the reviews.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Reviews are mixed. RT is not good for films that critics of two minds on but that they know people will see regardless of what they say. In these cases, discussing aspects of the film that critics liked and that they didn't like, rather than what we currently do in implying that some critics "liked" or "didn't like" the film overall. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Gauntlet Damaged

In the last scene, when Thanos activates the gauntlet and destroys half the universe, we see his gauntlet is fried, probably (and most certainly) non functional. Then how does he use the space stone to teleport away from the Thor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthu65 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it was still functional... --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To disintegrate every superhero...... Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Made up names or real names

I was just wondering if there is a reason why for the majority of the plot article Spider-Man is referred to as Peter Parker and Star Lord as Peter Quill, among others. It seems consistent throughout, but I was just thinking it might make sense to, if I can quote the film slightly,use there made up names. Just wanted to check if there was anyone who would rather have them stay as is or if I should change them.Thetetrisguy (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you.. it's weird to see the names used that way.. and it really bugs me on the justice league article that it refers to Batman as "wayne" for most of the plot synopsis... If they are in costume use the super hero name dammit. But i get that this is standard practice. Spanneraol (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Box office records splits

Nergaal TompaDompa Please participate in this discussion. Creating the article List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War is very unnecessary at this time. Not only can any an all records be included here at this time (which they are), there is not any other justification for splitting off at this time. In 3-4 weeks time, if a good number of records have been broken, then maybe this can be revisited, but at this time, a separate list is not warranted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, this is about 1000 times better of as a list like List of box office records set by Deadpool (film). Every single thing in this article can be greatly expanded on, especially the critical reception section, and those records fit way better of away from here. It's easier to have an independent list that doesn't risk making the article too large.★Trekker (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will also add, looking at the records listed in this version of the proposed list, currently all "worldwide" and "other territories" records are nicely listed as prose in this article. As for "US/Canada" section, the "big ones" (weekend/day grosses) are listed here in prose too. Others, such as the rating record seem like we're just going to Box Office Mojo and pulling things from their very expansive groupings of records. So I'll reiterate from my initial posting: does this article need to exist today? No. In 3-4 weeks time? Maybe. But all notable records have already been included here, do not need to be split off, and Box Office Mojo has the others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I seriously disagree, Treker. The film has only been in theatres for 4 days. It has broken records, yes. But not to the extent that it needs an article about it. It will probably break more records but that's WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You can't predict the future either. Right now, the article is unnecessary. A few weeks from now, then I would probably agree assuming more records are broken. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Callmemirela. That's the point I've been trying to get across. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I will add this to Treker: can you please be civil? Saying "fuck off" and personally attacking another user is not helping anyone. In fact, it isn't helping your case. STOP. If I have to, I will take it to ANI. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Favre1fan93, Callmemirela 🍁 and any other editor who believes a separate box-office-records article is unnecessary at this time. It seems like fannish WP:PUFFERY. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nergaal is insisting that I, or perhaps we, take it to AfD. Is that truly necessary? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk

MusikAnimal says we should take it to AfD as well. Can someone do it? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't particularly agree that the page is unnecessary (in addition to the point I raised below about readability, a box office section on an article and a list of box office records have different, albeit overlapping scopes that (ideally) complement each other – the former would be the place to put box office data that aren't records and the latter would be the place to put records besides the most important ones when there are so many that readability on the main article is affected) and needs to be turned into a draft for now, but going the WP:AfD route seems like massive overkill when there is a clear WP:CONSENSUS that the situation will need to be assessed again in the near future. It would just be a big waste of time and effort for everyone involved – better to make it a draft now and do the reassessing when it seems appropriate without going the long way around, so to speak. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've requested a full protection until the matter is resolved either throughout AfD (which i believe is unnecessary) or through the talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Though the article should be the redirect, not the content if it does get protected, while we are discussing. I'm not about to revert again and continue edit warring over the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Strike that last bit. I'm not actually sure if the content or no content (aka the redirect) would be the status quo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

{{under-construction}}

I don't think people understand what this template means. There are multiple editors adding to the forked list, after just 4 days of the release. People protecting an obvious forks have weird problems on their head. All articles like this go through an AfD to let people from outside to decide if the article should be deleted/merged/kept. But you know very well that by the time AfD is done, the article will be kept. I am not sure why is there so much energy put into preventing people from working on obviously relevant articles. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal attacks. Your third sentence is borderline a personal attack. I am requesting a protection because people are constantly reverting. Whether it's you, me, Favre, Treker, or the other editor, it has to be protected to finally have a conversation.

As for the rest, please read what's I wrote above: under construction is unwarranted. The film is still new, there are three records that have been broken. The article is empty for just those three and is fine in the box office section. If down the line, it beats more records, then it's more appropriate to seperate it. But as of right now, with only three, it's seriously unnecessary. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So start an AfD and see what people vote. Nergaal (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Favre1fan93 that the creation of the article was premature and that all the current records set thus far are easily accommodated at this article. I disagree with redirecting it though because that prevents developing the article. It should be put in somebody's sandbox for the time being and we can review the situation in a couple of weeks. If the film has legs and keeps breaking records we can move it into mainspace then. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm the one who created the article. Perhaps it was premature to do so – my main reason for creating it so quickly is that it's way easier to expand an existing list than it is to convert prose into a list. I did move the content to my sandbox when it was first turned into a redirect. I think the readability on the main article is already pushing it somewhat (which is a problem with using prose instead of a list for this kind of content). TompaDompa (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe we have consensus to WP:DRAFTIFY the article for the time being, restore the redirect, and revisit this topic in a few weeks time to see if we need it then, or to still hold off. Are there any objections to moving forward with this? @Callmemirela, Tenebrae, Nergaal, Betty Logan, and TompaDompa: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If that means moving the records article from mainspace to a draft space for now, yeah, I'm all for that.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, to Draft:List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War. Toompa has/had a version in their userspace, so that is a viable option too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No complaints from me. I'm all for it. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've updated my sandbox. I'd suggest waiting until after the weekend to turn List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War into a redirect again since box office records focus a lot on weekends and we'd feel silly if we made a change on Friday and had to change it back on Sunday, but that's just what I think. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, saying so is violating NPOV and OR. You can't predict what will happen. It should be redirected until at a time where it's too much for the main article and is necessary. I'll be redirecting the article right now per this conversation. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You could say it's a WP:CRYSTAL argument, yes. Or alternatively a WP:DONOTDEMOLISH argument. TompaDompa (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have redirected the article. I have also created the draft Draft:List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War as I believe it would more appropriate for anybody to update rather than another user's sandbox. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Callmemirela. Even after this weekend, I don't think this article is necessary. Let's all revisit this discussion in a few weeks time, when we can have a better, holistic view of what the box office is doing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War’s bravest moment only works because nobody takes it seriously

"Avengers: Infinity War’s bravest moment only works because nobody takes it seriously" https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17307690/marvel-avengers-infinity-war-ending possible source about the ending --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not overall seeing what makes that source so special: virtually every spoiler review and/or opinion piece I've checked says pretty much the same thing. It touches on what I said way up the page, in that we should include separate paragraphs on what various critics thought of different aspects of the film, including its ending and how its bite is softened by the fact that there are Spider-Man and Guardians sequels, and almost certainly a Black Panther sequel, already in the works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Wakandan Battlefield

Can't we just state "in Wakanda" instead of "on the Wakandan battlefield"? I see someone left a note that was done because Shuri's fate is unknown but simply not including Shuri's name would do the same thing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "in Wakanda" wording consistent with wording mentioning Wakanda in previous paragraph of Plot summary. Should the plot summary mention the six infinity stones earlier in the plot summary. They are mentioned toward the end of the plot summary, though they are the main purpose of the quest and mission of Thanos from the start. FutureForecasts (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Already reverted to normal. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

White Wolf or Winter Soldier

Bucky is still credited as "Winter Soldier" in the credits of the film, with "White Wolf" nowhere to be found. I keep getting reverted when I implement this change, so I figured I'd bring it here rather than having the edit summary arguments I've adamantly worked to avoid. Do we have a good source that he should be referred to by the alias "White Wolf" rather than Winter Soldier, or any other reason to disregard his credited name? Sock (tock talk) 20:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

is Renner, Rudd, Thompson, Bassett and Favreau not appearing

That's because of full actors and actresses appear in the film However, Renner, Rudd, Thompson, Bassett and Favreau which not appearing in the theatrical release.

Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

They’re involved in the two parter but as evidenced were not involved in the first part. Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammar

The final sentence of the plot section reads, "In a post-credits scene, Nick Fury transmits a distress signal as he, Maria Hill and others disintegrate. The device displays a star insignia on a red-and-blue background." I am sorry to have to point this out to whoever wrote it, but the last part of the plot section does not make sense as written. Grammatically, "the device" refers back to "a distress signal", as though "a distress signal" could be a device that displays an insignia. Obviously that is incorrect; a device can transmit a distress signal and it can display an insignia, but it cannot itself be a distress signal. I realize that anyone who reads those sentences is likely to understand what they were intended to mean, but grammatically they are simply wrong. I therefore respectfully disagree with this revert by TriiipleThreat. My clarification was indeed necessary, inasmuch as it corrected the grammar of the plot section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I see your point.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing it; it may be poor writing, but it would only be ungrammatical if it said "It displays..." -- I read it just fine as referring to "The device [that Fury used to transmit the signal] displays...". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm correct about the grammar of this, honestly. Whether a sentence is grammatical or not can depend on its placement relative to other sentences, and in this case it does. There is nothing ungrammatical about the sentence "The device displays a star insignia on a red-and-blue background" taken in itself, but becomes ungrammatical if placed after the previous sentence in the way it was originally written. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Without the added wording the question essentially becomes ‘What device?’ as there is no connection with the previous sentence. However, I believe In a post-credits scene, Nick Fury transmits a distress signal as he, Maria Hill and others disintegrate. The transmitter displays a star insignia on a red-and-blue background would take solve this issue without increasing the word count.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No objection. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Plot Improvisation

I am doing some great plot improvisations which stay true to the events of the film. Missing key events in the film are not written in the plot which I am adding but it always reverts back to the previous plot in a few minutes. Please help me with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthu65 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits you added were small, minute details that are not needed and are considered WP:PLOTBLOAT, we do not need every single moment that happened. Just a general overview is enough!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I add important stuff like why hawkeye and ant man are missing. Also the plot mentions an inured Stark but who injured him and how is never mentioned. How is someone going to make sense out of the plot if key details are missing. Let me improvise please!