Q: Why isn't Paramount Pictures mentioned in the infobox? Their logo is in the film and on the poster.
A: Please read End note 1 on the page, or read this article (which is conversely sourced in end note 1).
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the planned 2012 Marvel Studios film The Avengers, to be directed by Joss Whedon, was first announced in 2005?
Current status: Good article
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
"Loki escapes after killing Coulson." Coulson is still alive after Loki escapes, however. I therefore changed "killing" to "mortally wounding", confident that I had made a worthy if minor correction. The edit was nonetheless reverted, with the edit summary "he is still killed by Loki". I restored the edit, saying "Yes, but not before Loki escapes. It could imaginably be something like 'dealing a death blow to', but 'mortally wounding' is correct and more so than 'killing'. That the death occurred is immediately confirmed in the sentence following [thus rendering it unnecessary to mention Coulson's death as having occurred before it actually did]." The editor who had reverted my change was letting this stand, but someone else changed it back to "killing" and said I "need to discuss this on the talk page and establish consensus for this wording before it can stand in this article." I asked at the Teahouse if this was actually necessary and I learned that it was, unless I elected one of the other acceptable WP:BRD options. I would prefer to discuss this with the editor involved, but there are two of them and so I'm posting on the talk page as advised. Can we agree that Loki, before escaping, mortally wounds rather than kills Coulson, if Coulson is still alive when Loki escapes? Bret Sterling (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Adamstom.97 as a courtesy. While the reverts were justified, you should not have restored your preferred version once it was known to be contested in the first place (as per WP:BRD), and likely should have come here sooner. Focusing on the content, plot summaries typically tend to be WP:CONCISE and provide readers with the most direct information in the least amount of words possible to convey what happened in the media, rather than getting hung up over these minute details and verbiage changes. Ultimately, Loki attacks Coulson and he dies shortly after. The main point to get across in this plot summary (I emphasized this here as this is not a point-by-point breakdown of all events as it is meant to summarize the content), is that Coulson was killed by Loki. Given we see Coulson's death not too long after Loki escapes, I don't see much issue in retaining "'Loki escapes after killing Coulson" because that is ultimately what happens. I could, however, see something to the effect of Loki escapes after attacking and ultimately killing Coulson, though that carries on the info longer than is necessary here, and it is not technically helpful to state Coulson was "mortally wounded" if we are trying to convey that he actually succumbed to his wounds and died. In conclusion, I think the WP:STATUSQUO wording ought to remain as it gets the point across quickly and effectively without having the reader toy around the wording for the exact point. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is going directly from saying Coulson was mortally wounded to saying he is already dead, which is a jump for the reader. We do not have to break down each moment in the film exactly as it happens because this is a summary, and sometimes it makes sense to convey things differently through more concise text than is done in the film. While it is possible to read ""Loki escapes after killing Coulson" and say "that's not right, Coulson didn't die until after Loki escaped", I think it is also perfectly fine to interpret it as Loki's act of killing Coulson taking place before his escape. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, adamstom97, for clarifying your concern about the jump from "mortally wounded" to "already dead". To address this, I propose adding "subsequent" to the sentence following, making it: "Fury uses Coulson's subsequent death to motivate the Avengers to work together as a team." This should maintain the narrative flow without causing confusion. Although "mortally wounded" generally implies imminent death, this addition ensures clarity. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Bret Sterling (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]