Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)

Based on

@Favre1fan93: All of the MCU films are "based on the Marvel comic by [authors]" per the credits, but we've been treating them all as referring to the characters, not specific titles. Plus, the link still directs to the team and not the set of comic books, so I think it shouldn't be in italics. In other words, if we italicize Avengers in the |Based on=, we should apply that same logic and italicize every character listed in the |Based on= parameter of all the other films, and I don't think that's appropriate. —El Millo (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed something that might bring some trouble. We've been basing this off the credits. The end credits of The Avengers (2012) say it's Based on the Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and "Captain America" created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. —El Millo (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo and Favre1fan93: I tried to keep it consistent to being based on either characters or storylines per my edits, and now I guess we discuss per WP:BRD. The Avengers clearly isn't based on Captain America but no other Avenger, so I dispute the merits of going off the credits. I added second titular characters for Age of Ultron and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, btw, so I would say keep it to whatever's included in the title (e.g. for Captain America: Civil War, have Captain America and Civil War. That avoids confusion when deciding what to include when titles vary between characters and storylines, e.g. on Armor Wars just include the Armor Wars storyline, as opposed to on Iron Man where we just include Iron Man. IronManCap (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: So per what you quoted from the credits, the film is Based on the Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (bolding mine), which implies the comic book (The Avengers (comic book)), not the team, which is how it had been linked. The Cap part is there because the character appears in the film and is similar to the credits DC has to put whenever Superman appears; we can ignore this. @IronManCap: I'm pretty sure in all the solo franchise credits, the "Based on" text like Facu linked for his is just for the title character. Yes, there are comic storylines that inspire all of these films, but they are usually amalgamations of multiple ones and not direct adaptations. Regarding Armor Wars for the time being, as announced it was said it was more or less an adaption of that storyline, which would include Rhodey (who is not the main part of it in the comics). That's why, for the time being, I don't think putting "Based on War Machine" on that article is appropriate. That very well may change though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: What I was telling you is that Captain America: Civil War, for example, also says Based on the Marvel comic by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, so there's no difference in wording between the credits for Avengers films and the credits for solo films. That's why we can't argue that the Marvel comic refers to a comic book instead of a character only in the case of the Avengers films. All refer to a "Marvel comic", which doesn't necessarily mean they mean a specific comic book. If we are going to italicize some of them with that reasoning, we should italicize all of them. —El Millo (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This is something that I have thought about before but have never been super concerned with. I am happy with translating "Based on the Marvel Comics" to be the main character as we have always done, but if this is being questioned then it may be a good opportunity to revisit and make sure we are doing the right thing. Usually we make sure the infobox matches the official credits/billing, plus at this point we are getting many different characters in each film/series with different comic book creators so our assumption that the main characters cover it is probably a little outdated. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh my bad. Then yeah, let's make the Avengers films the team, not the book. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Same goes for the Guardians films. IronManCap (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it may be a time to perhaps stick more strictly to the credits, in order not to leave room for ambiguities, such as the case of Armor Wars and Captain America: Civil War, or The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I'm not sure though, because that would mean adding the "Captain America" credit to The Avengers. —El Millo (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean putting something like {{based on|Marvel Comics|Stan Lee|Jack Kirby}}, even though we know that equates to the Avengers team? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that could be done, as it's done in many DC-based films, but I meant including everything the credits include and nothing the credits don't include. —El Millo (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

We probably don't need to include extra stuff like the Captain America credit, just make sure we are matching the wording from the main titles / billing. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, we could make an exemption for that case. What are you referring to by wording? —El Millo (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

For instance, the main credits for Endgame say "Based on the Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby", so at that article we should use {{based on|the Marvel Comics|Stan Lee|Jack Kirby}}. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

All the credits say Marvel comic instead of a specific character or title. You'd want to do this for all films? —El Millo (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we have to use "Marvel comics", we can keep whatever character it is meant to be for, since you can more or less tell by who's credited. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with just having the relevant character(s) based on the credits, ignoring anomalies such as based on Captain America for The Avengers. IronManCap (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I think what's key is that we agree on not including anything that isn't in the official credits. —El Millo (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding hidden notes explaining that things are omitted due to not being in the credits might be the way to go. IronManCap (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there any instances where it is not clear which "the Marvel comics" it is referring to? And do we think it is correct to change the wording to a character's name when "the Marvel comics" is clearly not talking about a character? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've compiled all the "Based on" credits in my sandbox. Most will be no problem. We do however have some anomalies. Thor: The Dark World is similar to The Avengers, crediting Walt Simonson as creator of Malekith apart from the creators of Thor. Then we have a slightly bigger problem, which is that Captain Marvel, WandaVision, and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier don't credit anybody. All three say simply Based on the Marvel Comics. —El Millo (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well looking at it, they don't say that the films are 'based on' those individual characters like Malekith and Cap, they just say who created them. We can therefore ignore that in good conscience. IronManCap (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup exactly IronManCap. Some characters need to have their creator rights appear in whatever medium they appear. As I mentioned above, that's a similar situation at DC Comics regarding Superman. If the character appears in The Flash comic book, Superman's creator credits appear with the title etc. Same situation here with various characters in franchises in which they are not the main character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think for Captain Marvel, WandaVision, and FWS, we know each are based on their respective titular character(s), so I think we can keep them as is and I don't think it's any stretch to do that. Secret Invasion and Armor Wars might need to be situations where they become simply "Based on Marvel Comics". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, with the new media I guess we'll just guess it until they come out and we can see the actual credits. —El Millo (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to wait for the credits' wording for those. Also, about Ant-Man and the Wasp, it currently links Wasp for 'based on', although that refers to Janet van Dyne rather than the MCU Wasp, Hope van Dyne. Should we add 'Hope Pym' in that parameter as well, similar to what's done at Captain Marvel and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, in adding singular character names as well as aliases? IronManCap (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Facu-el Millo, Favre1fan93, and Adamstom.97:. IronManCap (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Another problem, this time with Ant-Man and the Wasp. The credits say Based on the Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby, but that would only apply to Ant-Man, as the Wasp was created by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and, Ernie Hart, who is not mentioned in the credits. —El Millo (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Just my 2¢: “Based on” credits like writing credits should be on what is actually billed. Wether if it’s the character/group or the publication depends on who is actually being billed. The only editorial judgment needed is if the character/group and the publication share the same creators.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So what would that mean in this case? Only credit Ant-Man; credit both characters but omit Ernie Hart; leave it as is? —El Millo (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If the only billed credit is Based on the Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby then that is what should be included. Maybe not link to a specific character(s) just write directly what is stated. Otherwise we’re getting into WP:OR territory.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay if we follow who is actually credited in the films, even if that goes against title character (ie, not listing Wasp credits on Ant-Man and the Wasp), but I still believe it isn't a stretch to use "Ant-Man" over "Marvel Comics" for those people credited. But in an instance where only partial characters are fully credited, maybe we just stick to "Marvel Comics" in those cases? So sticking with the Ant-Man films, the first film would be Based on Ant-Man by Stan Lee and Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby, while Ant-Man and the Wasp and Quantumania would be Based on the Marvel Comics by Stan Lee and Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby. Is that too tricky? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It is definitely a trick situation indeed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. So far, it seems we've agreed not to credit any creator that hasn't been credited, and that we can't include a character whose creators haven't been credited. Except, it seems, if no creditor is credited and it only says Based on the Marvel Comics. Is it so? —El Millo (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we are settling on a good approach where we take the based on wording directly from the credits and then swap out "the Marvel Comics" for the title character if the credited creators line up with the character's creators. If they don't line up then we just stick with the onscreen wording. My next question is are we happy to be consistent with that approach for the first sentence in the lead as well? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added what I think the credits should be based on our discussion at Facu-el Millo's sandbox, hopefully that will help get everyone on the same page. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so you think that we should not credit anyone if no one is credited, as it's the case with Captain Marvel, WandaVision, and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier? The discussion that has been going on at Talk:The Marvels (film)#Based on was considering using a reference to the date of release of the comic mentioned in the official Press Kit for Captain Marvel. —El Millo (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't got to that other discussion in my watchlist yet so not sure what people are saying there, but there are multiple versions of Captain Marvel in the comics and in the film and they have different creators, so us deciding what that means would definitely be WP:OR right? Same goes with the Disney+ shows which star multiple characters with multiple creators who have not been officially credited. We know Marvel will give a specific credit if there is one, so if all we are getting is "Based on the Marvel Comics" then that suggests there is no specific credit and we shouldn't be trying to make up one. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding my comment here as well. Yeah, I agree this is OR because the films don't credit any particular comment, character or creators. So, us deciding who to credit when they mix stories from so many comic books (regardless of the title character) is pure original research. So, we should just stick to the credits which simply say "based on the Marvel Comics." — Starforce¹³ 05:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If the credited creators exactly match up with the creators of a particular character or comic book, we can add that. If not, just "based on Marvel Comics by..." would do, with a hidden note to clarify why a particular character isn't included in that parameter. This would mean adjusting the leads of the articles as well. IronManCap (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That's what WP:SYNTHESIS is, where you piece together information to draw your own conclusion that is different from what the source says. Unless the source specifically credits a comic or a character, then stick to "Marvel Comics." Trying to use names and dates to figure out the comic they're referring to is synthesis and editorial. Stick to the credits. — Starforce¹³ 15:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not WP:SYNTHESIS as sources aren't being combined to reach the conclusion. If the exact character creators are stated in the credits, then per convention for various different comic-based film articles and consensus at this talkpage we should include that. If the creators in the credits are different from the character's creators, then it's WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR to include a particular character, which is where hidden notes come in handy. IronManCap (talk) IronManCap (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

An example of what I mean is adamstom.97's additions to El Millo's sandbox, where the credits' wording has been written out as well as what we should include for each film. IronManCap (talk) IronManCap (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

One thing Adamstom.97, I see a lot of films say Based on the Marvel Comic Book rather than simply Based on the Marvel Comics. Crediting a character for the ones that say 'based on the book' would be inconsistent with the credits, such as for Iron Man and Thor, as characters aren't books. IronManCap (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that's not really relevant. "Marvel Comic" doesn't explicitly refer to a character either. —El Millo (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

IronManCap, the rule of WP:VERIFIABILITY is that if someone else unfamiliar with the subject looks at the source, they should be able to confirm that's exactly what the source does. If you take the credited creators, and combine them with external knowledge of what those creators created to come up with the comic book or character being refered to, then you're doing an original research. So, if the credits say based on the "Marvel Comics" or even "Marvel Comic Book", then that's what we should say. It's not our job to research what comic book they're referring to. It needs to be something you can verify without the need to combine with other sources or prior knowledge to know what comic book it's referring to. — Starforce¹³ 20:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a common practice both in film credits and in Wikipedia. I gave the Harry Potter example earlier, but you can also check The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: the credits say Based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien, it doesn't clarify which book, but it's clear that's The Fellowship of the Ring. Take another example, The Perks of Being a Wallflower says Screenplay by Stephen Chbosky, based on his book, but it's clear it's The Perks of Being a Wallflower. On the opposite end we have something like Blade Runner that doesn't share its title or even part of it with the source material, so the credits say Based on the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick", because just saying "the novel" wouldn't be clear enough. —El Millo (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I think the examples Facu-el Millo has given should suffice. Starforce13, this does not fail WP:V as it is verifiable - the credited creators match up with the creators on the article, and Based on the Marvel Comics obviously refers to comics featuring that character if the credited creators are the same. WP:SNOWBALL definitely applies. IronManCap (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, for cases like Captain Marvel where the credits don't specify any creator, would it be appropriate to use a secondary source? For example, Collider states in this article that the film is based on the Gene Colan and Roy Thomas comic. —El Millo (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we need to stick to the credits. It is the same for any other listing in the infobox/lead, they need to be as credited and then we can add further information in the body/notes if needed. I am reluctant to add a note with the creators as well because that would still be us guessing who deserves credit. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I also don't really agree with using a secondary source, and that is more into WP:SYNTHESIS territory by trying to dig out details in sources to argue it is based on a certain character. IronManCap (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought of this because I looked at the X-Men films as examples for this, and none of them credit anyone or anything, not even a mere "Based on the Marvel Comics" as Captain Marvel. Still, it seems detrimental not to include anything in the |Based on= parameter for those films. But that's an issue for another time. —El Millo (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Since Marvel Studios includes the "based on" credit, I think it's fine to include it. But we just need to include who they actually credit. Not what we or other sites think (especially if it's by sites with low reputation like Collider, CBR, Comicbook.com, Screenrant). So, let's stick to the credits. Now, we have 3 scenarios:

• "Based on the Marvel Comic Book by..." - I think this is safe to say that they're referring to the comic book of the same title like is the case of Harry Potter and the LOTR examples mentioned.
• "Based on Marvel Comics" - we should not attempt to associate any specific comic book, character or creator. We would be adding credits that aren't supported by the primary source. So, this should apply to both Captain Marvel, The Marvels, WandaVision, TFATWS.
• Based on Marvel Comics by..." - this is the tough one that may need more discussion. — Starforce¹³ 00:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As already demonstrated, consensus is building that including a character with the exact same credited creators as in the film is not WP:SYNTHESIS or anything like that. Sticking literally to the credits without including obvious details that match the credits really does feel like WP:SNOWBALL. In terms of "based on the Marvel Comic Book", we would have to find the first book called Iron Man for instance, and if the creators are exactly the same as the character I don't see the issue with just crediting the character and its creators. I agree about "based on Marvel Comics" since no creators are credited for those. IronManCap (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly think that Marvel Comic, Marvel Comics, and Marvel Comic Book are referring to the same thing. —El Millo (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The ones that simply say "Marvel Comics" were the biggest problem and we seemed to have a consensus; they've been updated. The next big one is Ant Man and the Wasp where they only credit the Ant Man creators? Should we change it? (And yeah, I agree, I think "Marvel Comics", "Marvel Comic Book" and "Marvel Comic" all refer to the same thing, just different wording. So, the same rule should apply to all the rest.) — Starforce¹³ 16:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to remove the Wasp credit from the two Ant-Man and the Wasp articles and just say that they are based on Ant-Man. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about the alternative of just saying Marvel Comics by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby instead of Ant-Man? I'm not sure which one is better. —El Millo (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Let’s just stick to the actual credits for the infobox, like what do for directors, writers, producers, etc.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We already established there's a common practice of not repeating the name of the source material in the credits if it's the same as the film or if it's obvious. This is not comparable to directors, writers, and producers' names. —El Millo (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If there's consensus that the credits are clearly referring Ant-Man alone, then we keep Ant-Man. If we can't agree on that, i.e. some consider that it's too ambiguous, we use Marvel Comics. —El Millo (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think they're referring to Ant-Man. The film was intended as a direct sequel to the first Ant-Man after all, is based more around Lang than van Dyne, and is often referred to as Ant-Man 2, but never as The Wasp, unlike Captain America: The Winter Soldier being colloquially called The Winter Soldier for instance. So I think we should have Ant-Man there, since the creators match up. IronManCap (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the AM&W article to say "Based on Ant-Man by..." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Done the same for Quantumania. IronManCap (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with these new changes. To link to Marvel Comics is too broad and doesn't make sense in the context of the film credits. Unlike DC which credits the characters themselves, Marvel credits the comic books the characters are originally from (ex. Based on the Comic Book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, the "comic book" is Amazing Fantasy #15). If there were changes to be made, I propose that solo films will have the character (no italicization) and the credited creators in the infobox, saying "*Character* by *Creator(s)*. Team films where there are credited creators of the group (ex. The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Justice League) should feature only the group and creators linked, saying *Team* by *Creator(s)*. and for films that feature original new groups using previously solo characters (ex. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and The Marvels) should only say "Characters by Marvel Comics/DC/other publisher". If too complicated, just use the latter's idea. Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

We do this by the film's credits. Saying Characters by Marvel Comics is basically the same as simply saying Marvel Comics, it conveys the same amount of information. Apart from that, your approach seems to be basically the same as the current one: having the character and the credited creators for solo films, and the group and credited creators for group films. But what if neither is credited? Deciding what the film is based on when the credits don't credit a character or a creator is WP:OR, as there are many iterations of these characters in the comics and some times it's not obvious which one it is, or whose comic run is it based on. Sometimes (an increasingly more often) there are many protagonists, which, if left to our assessment on what the film is based on, can (and has) resulted in a bloated parameter, with up to three {{Based on}} entries in a case like The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, where Falcon, Bucky, and Winter Soldier were all included when none of their creators were actually credited, simply based on what we thought was common sense. We were basing the inclusion on the titles of the properties, but then some other edits started to come up, e.g. including the comic Civil War in Captain America: Civil War. Then we suggested only including characters whose names appeared in the titles, so Winter Soldier was added to Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Ultron to Avengers: Age of Ultron, so we said to only include the protagonist whose name was in the title. But then what should we include in the |Based on= parameter for Armor Wars? Because the main character is War Machine, but he wasn't in the title, while Armor Wars was, but it wasn't a character's name. But then if we listed Armor Wars there, why wouldn't we include Civil War in Civil War, or even Infinity Gauntlet in Avengers: Infinity War if someone wanted to stretch it a little bit? I think just basing the content of the parameter simply on what the credits say is the simplest and most honest approach we can have, and the best compromise we could come to. Accepting that assessing it ourselves is too complicated and would lead to both bloated and inaccurate info, and that whatever isn't listed in that parameter could be conveyed with a slightly different wording elsewhere, appropriately addressing the nuances and details of what each property is strictly "based on".

In summary, your approach seems to be basically the same but without addressing the problem of properties where there are no credited creators of the source material. If you want to suggest changing Marvel Comics to Characters by Marvel Comics, I wouldn't have a problem with it, and I guess most others wouldn't either as it's practically the same and there's no WP:OR required for that. But citing what we think is best when no one is credited seems to have been clearly consensuated against. —El Millo (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Did anyone solve that "problem", either here or elsewhere? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

What problem? I thought this discussion was long-since resolved now that we have been using the new consensus everywhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

problem of properties where there are no credited creators of the source material --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no other problem, just that your approach didn't fix anything that the other proposal, the current use, didn't already solve. —El Millo (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It was not my proposal? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The proposal you were referring to then. —El Millo (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there's something we forgot to mention. Most of the time, they credit the comic and NOT the character(s) (ex. "Based on the Marvel Comic Book by..."). DC on the other hand credits the characters. I suggest we italicize the source material's name/title in the "based on" for Marvel (MCU and non-MCU) movies, unless the credits are otherwise noted. IAmNMFlores (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I see consensus above that they are referring to the character(s) and not the comic books themselves. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like they missed the point then. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a discussion we had long ago, about them referring to the characters, given they don't refer any specific comic run. —El Millo (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

MCU movies have never been based on specific Marvel Comics book titles. Only Marvel related ones I think think of were some of the older Spider-Man films I think using "Based on The Amazing Spider-Man". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Sequel section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given the expected changes in the cast, the 2025 films Avengers: Kang Dynasty and Avengers: Secret Wars are not mentioned in the sequel sections of Avengers or its first three sequels. As found in the User Talk discussion linked above between @Adamstom.97:, @Facu-el Millo:, and @Favre1fan93:, they feel the See Also note pointing to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is sufficient. @PDAF14YT, Ironman7777, David1257, and InfiniteNexus: have tried to add the upcoming films but have been reverted.

Should the sequel section mention Avengers 5 and 6? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, as they are obviously sequels in the Avengers franchise. Omitting them without comment is a glaring omission to readers. Alternatively, follow the pattern set by The Fast and the Furious (2001 film) and remove the sequel section entirely. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• No given the interconnectedness of the MCU, yes, while Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars are part of the Avengers franchise, all indications are they are more closely tied with the projects and events as depicted in the other Phase Four and Five titles, than anything to do, narratively, with this film, Age of Ultron, or Infinity War. Which can't be said for Age of Ultron, Infinity War, and Endgame in relation to this film. Thus, there is no need to make mention of them here, in the same way where we don't make mention of every branching project from these films and give readers the hatnote links to easily navigate to the MCU films list. This is in a similar sense to Captain America: New World Order not needing a mention at Captain America: The First Avenger or Captain America: The Winter Soldier. That film is appropriately noted at Captain America: Civil War along with The Falcon and the Winter Soldier info. As such, mentions of Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars are appropriate at the Endgame article give they are both "continuing" the franchise from that film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Are there reliable sources voicing those indications you mention, or is that your original research / crystal ball? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Given the character of Kang (or his variants), plus the Multiverse elements (that are a part of the more modern Secret Wars comic storyline) were in no part involved with Phases 1-3 of the MCU, it's pretty clear there are virtually no ties to these four films beside just continuing the Avengers franchise name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
      • So the answer to my question was "no", then. You do not have sources that classify Avengers 5 and 6 as unrelated to Avengers 1-3. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
        • The only information we have on these films suggests that they are not direct sequels to the previous 4, unless you can provide reliable sources proving otherwise we have to go off what we know. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
          • You're seriously asking me to provide a source that Avengers 5 is related to Avengers 1? That's WP:BLUE. You say it's not, and that sources say it's not - then the article should say that plainly. You can't expect readers to understand that. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have no opinion on this, but I'd like to clarify that I added in the sequel information before any consensus was formed, as I was one of the first to mass-update all of the MCU articles after SDCC. After more editors arrived, consensus was formed not to include this, which I respect (as seen here). Also, I recommend that this RfC be speedily closed as premature/unnecessary. The mere two-comment discussion above does not satisfy WP:RFCBEFORE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If we're going to have a hidden note citing consensus, there needs to be actual consensus we can point to. That's why I copy/pasted the section above this one the other impacted articles. I don't believe the linked talk page qualifies as consensus. It was one user who made a bold suggestion, one who agreed in principal but thought it would be a battle to maintain, and one who was fine with it iff the phrase "direct sequel" was used (which it's currently not). Argento Surfer (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Consensus is not solely determined by talk page discussions. In this case, there was consensus among regular MCU editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The regular MCU editors do not own the pages they edit, and that's exactly how this "consensus" was determined. Three editors had a brief discussion, then reverted four editors who disagreed with them. Those reverts cited consensus without linking it, and then a hidden note was inserted that also didn't link it. By your own admission, you thought the material should be there but then went along with this consensus you were told about - did you read the discussion, or take the reverter's word for it? Consensus may not be a vote, but when it's 5 (including myself) against 3, a more formal discussion should take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer (talk • contribs) 13:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Falsely accusing others of WP:OWN is not assuming good faith. The discussion on Favre's talk page was started after my first edit was reverted, and yes I was well aware of it. Consensus was established in both that discussion and in the week that followed where the consensus was unchallenged. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this RfC is very premature. There was consensus to not add the new films, it doesn't matter whether it came from a full discussion at this talk page or not. That's not to say that it isn't valid to ask for a discussion here since you disagree with the consensus, but you should have done that before starting an RfC. For the record, I agree with Favre's reasoning above. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with what Favre said above. —El Millo (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• No - per what Favre said. -- Zoo (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, for now Given that the financial success of this film led directly to every MCU film, either already released or announced, since, I think it's a moot point to claim that Avengers 5 and 6 will have stronger in-universe story connections to Avengers 3 and 4, and the other films and TV series in this franchise that have been released since 2018, than to this particular film. Ideally, the "Sequels" section should include more detail on the entire franchise that this film (much more than any of the films between Iron Man (2008) and Captain America: The First Avenger) gave birth to, but pending that, it should just discuss all the films in "the Avengers film series". (Incidentally, if we were going to talk about in-universe story connections, Avengers 3 and 4 are clearly more closely connected Captain America 3 and Thor 3 than to this film.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: My main problem with including a mention of Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars in the Sequel section for the first three Avengers movies is that Avengers 1-4 are part of the Infinity Saga, and prominently include the OG 6 Avengers having a key role in all the major plot points related thereunto. By contrast, Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars do not include any members of the OG team, as far as we currently know, and they are part of the Multiverse Saga. Would it be appropriate to mention the films in question at Avengers: Endgame? Of course, because that was the most recent Avengers film. But listing the two films in every one of the preceding three Avengers films' sequel sections would be disingenous, and inconsistent with what the Sequel sections are supposed to cover, per established policy. I strongly object to including Avengers 5 and 6 information in any other Avengers article except Endgame for that reason. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That is additional rationale for me too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: What established policy are you referring to? There is nothing on sequel sections at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to read the MOS:FILM page more carefully. Had you done so, you would have noticed it makes reference to "interrelated components", which, in my view, applies to actors in multiple films within the franchise. The Avengers team dealing with the Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars stories have no direct connection to the OG team from the first four. Had you read the policy more carefully, you would have also noticed that, with reference to sequels, unnecessary duplication of material in every film within a particular franchise (such as that of the Avengers movies) violate those same MOS parameters. So much for your claim that the MOS in question doesn't address these issues. It seems at this point you have a choice: you can either continue to argue this moot point and continue to be proven wrong in your arguments, or you can recognize there are a few editors here who know what they are talking about and you can Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK. The poor horse is long since dead, so you'd be wise to stop flogging the poor thing. The consensus appears to be clearly against you, but ultimately, the ball is in your court. Inform us of your next play, which at this point is also likely to be based on faulty reasoning and incomplete understanding of policy. Your call. Jgstokes (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you vaguely reference "established policy," and when I ask which one I'm beating a dead horse? That's rather arrogant. And the "interrelated components" phrase is part of MOS:FILMSERIES, which in context is talking about transmedia examples that count toward a franchise being worth a separate article. It's a stretch to say that covers a sequel section, especially with respect to omitting a sequel. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a really odd point to make. We know nothing about The Kang Dynasty or Secret Wars. We do not know if any of the OG Avengers will be in it. So this isn't a valid point at all. And since it seems you're making an ((un)informed?) guess, I'll add that it stands to reason that either Ruffalo or Hemsworth or both will be in either or both films at the very least. Even Renner could be featured. UnderIrae (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• YES. The reasons for inclusion are all facts: the films have "Avengers" in the name, they are not a reboot, and it's the same studios. The reason for not doing so sounds arbitrary and YMMV to me. In fact, being a shared universe may mean quite the opposite thing, that many films are partially "sequels" to others (note for example that besides Age of Ultron itself, Iron Man 3, The Dark World, and Winter Soldier all continued plot lines from the Avengers as well). And, having said that, that may be a discussion for some years in the future: right here and now 'we have no idea what those films will be about, other than the name and speculation. "All indications so far point to them being the culmination of all the Multiverse Saga films" is speculation, not known and referenced fact. Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Being a shared universe, we have to try and limit what we include in these Sequels and Future sections as much as we can, given that if we keep it loose we'll end up adding every film to every other film article. The idea of these two Avengers films as the culmination of the Multiverse Saga isn't speculation, it's a fact, at least for now, given that Feige said that Avengers films would cap sagas instead of phases from now on and that they're announced to be the last two films of the Multiverse Saga. —El Millo (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It's a sequel in the Avengers franchise. Not sure what the issue is. JOEBRO64 18:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• No, and they should not mention the third and fourth films either. For the non-specialist reader, the cutoff after the fourth film is arbitrary, and it's understandable why it can feel like this section is erroneously not naming them. We can mention the immediate titular sequel, or we can mention all related titular sequels. Anything in-between requires specialist knowledge that the average reader does not have. (In other words, most readers and moviegoers are not closely following this "Phase" business and making distinctions based on these stages.) I lean more toward only mentioning the immediate titular sequel because to mention more is scope creep, especially considering the open-ended nature of this franchise. Linking to the full list of MCU films is sufficient for access to the sequel's sequel and sequel's sequel's sequel and so forth. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think that's a good idea and we should consider that for the other MCU films, we already have further info links for readers who want to know about all of the other related films and it is already debatable whether some of the sequels in the MCU are any more connected to the earlier films than other spin-offs and crossovers. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. There is, in my mind, no doubt that these are continuations of the Avengers’ story, even with the new characters. We don’t know who is in the cast, and these are inevitably the next installments in the Avengers franchise. It should be noted that Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi all list Sequel trilogy films as sequels to themselves. The Tokyo Drift example is not applicable because there was no continuation either thematically or narratively from the film’s previous installments at that point in time. However, many of the characters we can expect to be in this film are going to be reprising their roles from previous films in the Avengers franchise specifically. As for the Captain America example, Sam is continuing his story from the previous Avengers films. It’s no different from Rey taking over as the lead in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, or Ryan Gosling’s character in Blade Runner 2049, neither film has any problem being defined as a sequel. The Avengers films don’t stop because Thanos is gone. ChimaFan12 (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - it's a continuation of the Avengers franchise. Just because not all the cast from the original movies make it doesn't mean they are suddenly not sequels. You don't even need to have anyone from the original cast to fit the definition of a sequel. We also don't need — Starforce¹³ 13:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars are sequels by definition. As another user said, the average reader can't be expected to know the Infinity Saga/ Multiverse saga difference, therefore not including those films doesn't make sense. To put it another way, omitting the sequals of Avengers (2012) from Avengers (2012)#sequals isn't useful to a reader new to the franchise/genre. Squeezdakat (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes By definition of a sequel. ~ HAL333 17:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• No I agree with Favre and Erik here, and especially on the applicability of MOS:FILM. A film series article is a far more appropriate section for the decade+ recitation of spinoffs and sequels and franchise material; it's undue weight in an article that is and should be primarily about the 2012 film. "We should include it because it could have some of the actors from this film" is a WP:CRYSTAL violation (you need to prove for inclusion, not for exclusion) and is kind of irrelevant. There's also the practical benefit of centralizing information rather than repeating it across a half-dozen articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @David Fuchs: I think we all agree that it could have some of the actors from this film is irrelevant, since no one has put forth that claim as a reason for inclusion. That has only been discussed in response to !voters saying films 5 and 6 should be excluded because they won't feature actors from this film. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Which is exactly the problem with considering Avengers 4 and 5 as sequels? If they have "Avengers" in the name, are produced by the same company, and are not reboots, then it seems completely natural to consider them as such. Cambalachero (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

They have "Avengers" in the name but all indications so far point to them being the culmination of all the Multiverse Saga films (which does not unclude any other Avengers films) and not sequels to or continuations of the Infinity Saga films. Basically they are just new MCU crossover films that happen to use the name "Avengers" rather than new films in this franchise. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the most similar situation to this one is the upcoming Captain America film starring Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson / Captain America. Same title, different character, just as Avengers is the same title, different team. We don't include this "fourth" Captain America in The First Avenger or The Winter Soldier, only in Civil War, which is the last film of the trilogy. —El Millo (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think better established examples would be Ghostbusters (2016 film) (mentioned in the sequel section of Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II), The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (film articles have no sequel sections), the Saw films (no sequel sections), or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (mentioned at Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom and Last Crusade have no sequel sections). None of those are perfect comparisons, but they all have similar issues with cast/thematic changes. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The big difference here is the large number of films and TV series between Endgame and Kang that we have been told are almost all building up to the new films. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

My "problem" is a different one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: as this is your only comment at this RfC, would you care to expand on this thought? Argento Surfer (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Post Mortum

This wasn't officially closed, but I'm seeing no consensus. What now? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Presumably, WP:STATUSQUO remains given there was no new or changed consensus on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

That link only applies to continuing discussions. This one appears to be over. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:NOCONSENSUS: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. —El Millo (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Commonly, yes, but I don't think a result of "no consensus" here supports retaining a hidden note saying there is consensus to omit. I have restored the RfC template. Hopefully an uninvolved party will stop by to evaluate and close. I'm also going to modify the hidden note directing editors to this discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This whole discussion is premature because it's based on the assumption that no original avengers will be involved in Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars. Yet, those claiming that have not seen the movie. FWIW, only Tony and Black Widow died. Everyone else including old man cap is still alive as far as we know. I highly doubt Hulk, Thor, Hawkeye, Fury, Maria Hill... are just going to sit it out. So, this whole discussion makes no sense.— Starforce¹³ 13:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I've reverted your edits. As you yourself noted above, there was no new consensus in this discussion. If needed, you can request a formal closure at WP:CR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There were three additional comments following my comment above... Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You wrote: Commonly, yes, but I don't think a result of "no consensus" here supports retaining a hidden note saying there is consensus to omit. But you didn't say why that is, and I personally don't see a reason why WP:NOCONSENSUS doesn't/shouldn't apply. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

And irregardless, "no consensus" cannot equate to "there is consensus", which is what your edits seemed to suggest. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If you don't understand that "no consensus" is different from "consensus for the negative," I can't help you. And as I said in the very short comment you're replying to, there were 3 more responses to the RfC since I said there was no apparent consensus. All three of those responses favored inclusion, and I felt that tipped the conversation toward inclusion. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The Avengers (2011 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Avengers (2011 film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 30 § The Avengers (2011 film) until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"The Avengers (2011)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Avengers (2011) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 30 § The Avengers (2011) until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)