Talk:Avengers: Infinity War/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(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. ^[1] 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)

Those figures from the Sylt article blew my mind. Not just Infinity War's, but even more so the rest MCU films listed in that table. If these are indeed taken from company accounts and are the closest we got to the actual budget (besides the FilmL.A. studies), shouldn't we update the respective pages accordingly, or do the figures also include P&A costs? FilmL.A. has updated its 2015 report for Age of Ultron to $444 million (gross budget), yet the figure here is even higher. It struck me as odd that none of the other 6 MCU films mentioned have been updated with the Sylt article as a reference, which is why I thought I'd check with everyone here first. Punkalyptic (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Adjust the following line to read:

"Meanwhile, Thanos recovers on another planet, and appears to contemplate the results of his actions." Capnjeff1203 (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Per hidden note in the plot section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ADD TO THE THE END OF THE INTRO: Its a record well worth mentioning.

Avengers: Infinity War (Part 1) has set the record for the the fastest movie to generate $1 Billion - Just in 11 days. Nicolaosmo (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done TompaDompa (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It bugged me. The line reads "Thor, Rocket, and Groot arrive to reinforce the Avengers; Midnight, Obsidian, and Glaive are killed and their army is routed. Thanos arrives and despite Maximoff's attempt to destroy the Mind Stone but Thanos retrives the Stone from Vision, killing him."

It should/could read: "Thor, Rocket and Groot arrive to reinforce the Avengers; Midnight, Obsidian and Glaive are killed and their army is routed. Thanos arrives, and despite Maximoff's attempt to destroy the Mind Stone, Thanos retrieves the Stone from Vision, killing him." the 'but' is not necessary here.

It's also worth mentioning in the film that she DOES destroy it, but he makes a point to use the Time Stone to restore it, and then takes it from her.

Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naoihe (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Already done by Triiiple. FutureForecasts (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The Russos have given an explanation behind this. Is it worth adding? Especially because Renner previously said he would appear. But apparently he didn't film any scenes. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It may be better suited at the production article, which can cover both films and how the characters are divided between them. Work is being done at the moment to revamp that article a bit and make it clearer where all the cast and character information should be discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

and so hulk?. Hansonjay _(t@lk) 06:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted, that despite what he plot section states, not "Almost all life across the universe disintegrates" upon Thanos's use of the gauntlet. Thanos's plot was to eliminate half of all life in the galaxy. To suggest that "Almost all life across the universe disintegrates" is a gross overstatement, not supported by the events of the movie. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.36.90 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

release date india 27 april 2017

            russia 4 may 2017
            china 11 may 2017 117.225.201.119 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk

21:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@KuyaBriBri: That's not why this information should not be included, despite the abundance of reliable sources that probably verify it. We don't include all the global release dates in the infobox, and only discuss them further down if the film's openings in such territories are noteworthy for the "box office" section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You guys forgot to put the release dates for DVD, 4K & Blu-Ray for this movie. It'll be out Aug. 14.

Matthew93256 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Done!

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add DVD, 4K & Blu-Ray release date August 14, 2018. Is these true?

 Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

03:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Goldenkey241 (talk) 01:35, 31 May 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

Nope, this is about 1000 times better of as a list like

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: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

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: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)

{{

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.

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

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: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)

Posting here partly so the discussion doesn't get automatically archived prematurely, partly to invite people to have a look at how

I still don't see the need at this time. It is still, honestly, just if it should be prose (as here) or in a list (as in the draft) and the prose is not excessive where a separation is necessary. The entire "Box office" section is coming up as about 8.2 kB, which per

WP:SPLITSIZE, is nowhere near any size where splitting should be discussed. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 01:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not what

WP:SPLITSIZE says. It's not even remotely what it says. What it says is Below 50 kB, an article may not need splitting based on size alone [...] Note the difference between "article" and "section", as well as the difference between "splitting" and "splitting based on size alone". TompaDompa (talk

) 07:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Avengers infinity war has not grossed $2 billion as of yet. Please change the lifetime box office gross from $2.071 billion to $1.964 billion, or $1.965 billion. As not doing so would mean that it has already outgrossed Star Wars Force Awakens Box Office record of $2.068 billion, which as of 6/4/2018, it has not. Clearly a mistake. Hallfing (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Junholeeztp (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

change generally positive to postive

 Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

03:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think a better source than RT should be found even for "generally positive". RT is only reliable for the claim that a majority of critics were "more positive than negative", but I actually have not seen a single "positive" review that wasn't actually mixed. RT employs a binary "thumbs up or down" system that doesn't work for the claim that reviews were not mixed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Hijiri here. I argued this at Fifty Shades of Grey (film). The 83% rating is how many critics gave a positive review, i.e. 277 critics out of 333 gave a positive review (whether it was borderline positive or praise). It doesn't actually define how good or bad the film is. From my understanding, the 7.4/10 rating would be much more appropriate, but I am unsure if that rating is related to the critics' ratings or RT's. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If the RT score is the percentage of critics that gave a positive review, then the majority of reviews for this film were positive. That sounds like "generally positive" to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between 75% of critics giving a positive review vs the average rating from the critics being 6.0/10. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about the difference between "generally received positive reviews" and "received generally positive reviews"? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Hijiri is talking about, RT is not strictly binary. It has a 7.4/10 average rating from critics. Although this does bring up a good point. These statements are always a point of conflict and MCU articles have successfully managed to avoid this conflict in the reception section but have failed to do so in the lead. So why not do the same there? For instance, instead of writing The film received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised the cast, visual effects, emotional weight of the story, and action scenes, we could write The film received praise for the performances of the cast (particularly Brolin), visual effects, emotional weight of the story, and action scenes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, especially when we are having particular trouble with wording for an article. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good option Triiiple. Because frankly, (and I may be wrong here) but I feel a majority of the time it's IP editors adding the "The film received [quantifier] from critics" statements. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The current poster image has a very low quality. You can use this image instead: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/avengers-infinity-war-poster-1093756.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.105.28.137 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Never, Favre1fan93. (Christian M. (2016)) 04:40, 7 June 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)

It's a nickname. It's not a superhero name or alternate identity.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see Danai in the theatrical poster. Poster My7thsecret (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please approve to me that you will give me a chance to let me have Gurira and Wright on the billing, with the rest of the cast members (Gillan, Hiddleston, Elba, Dinklage, Wong, Klementieff, Diesel, Cooper, Paltrow, del Toro) below after Pratt, please Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat? This is an example when X-Men: First Class had a cast that isn't based on the billing. If you say "WE CAN'T HAVE GURIRA AND WRIGHT AND THAT THEY'RE NOT ON THE BILLING", could be give me an explanation why for if I didn't mean to put "ORDER BASED ON THE BOTTOM BILING"? (Christian M. (2016)) 04:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on this matter has not changed. We are using the cast order in the bottom billing of the theatrical release poster (the image on this article) as the basis for our bulleted cast list. How or why Disney did not include Gurira and Wright down there, when they are included in the top, we won't know. But the reason we follow that order is for reasons exactly like this: to not attempt to alter the list for personal preference. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Also believe that this is an example of

WP:OTHER, just because it's on the X-Men page, doesn't mean we're going to do it here.--QueerFilmNerd (talk

) 19:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I also asked for the page to be extended confirmed protected so we were able to revert the edits, stop the current edit war going on and start a discussion on the talk page. The current situation was not achieving anything and was counter productive. Christian M. (2016), and any other editors involved, please continue the discussion here.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the box office collection is not updated. Latest resources tell us that Avengers infinity war has grossed 2.10 billion worldwide but in Wikipedia, it says that it has grossed 1.970 billion. Please make he changes. Sha0092 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide

The release date is incorrect on infinity War, it was not released on the 25th it was released on the 27th. Manleybruin5 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Manleybruin5: The US release date was April 27, and the global release date was April 25. The article mentions this (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 [...]). I'm not sure I quite understand your objection. TompaDompa (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If the film is out for its release date of April 27th it is shown proven to have beaten Avatar as fastest to 2 billion Manleybruin5 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That is false logic. The film started its international roll-out on April 25 (see [1]), which would make June 11 its 48th day. Avatar started its international roll-out on December 16 2009 (see [2]) and hit $2 billion on January 31, 2010 (see [3]) which was Avatar's 47th day in release. Obviously, if you are going to take April 27 as Avenger's release date (giving it 46 days), you also have to do the same for Avatar (December 18), bringing the record down to 45 days. It does not make sense to do that, but either way Avatar still has the record. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)April 27 is the US release date. The global release date was April 25, making it one day slower than Avatar. TompaDompa (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War has been nominated for deletion. Users are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Include Soul World at the end of the plot rather than new planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.26.61 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The planet the Plot section is referring to isn't Soul World (which does make an appearance, but isn't addressed at all in the Plot section). --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Came across this article about a subreddit attempting to put "Thanos' mentality" to the test by banning a large amount of users from said-subreddit. Is this something we should mention? Partially thinking so, based on the fact it would be the most amount of bans ever on Reddit, which seems notable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, though I'm not sure where it would go. Would we create a new section for it? And if so, would we want to look at other coverage of the "snap" and how the wider community has responded to it? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are some more bits: Brolin got involved and It is happening now. We could also mention this website. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

As you can view in the following still from

) 01:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You had forgot to mention Thor Getting a new eye from Rocket Raccoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:650f:3f00:58c7:cf64:e7c8:bf8b (talk)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2409:4064:381:D1E0:0:0:408:40A1 (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this was part of the above request perhaps? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:28, 15 July 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. Kpgjhpjm

14:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add on to the page somewhere that besides being an executive producer, James Gunn wrote the dialogue for all of the Guardians characters.

Several articles stating this: https://nerdist.com/james-gunn-wrote-dialogue-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy-avengers-infinity-war/ https://screenrant.com/avengers-infinity-war-james-gunn-guardians-galaxy/ http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/04/03/infinity-war-james-gunn-reportedly-wrote-dialogue-for-guardians-of-the-galaxy-characters https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2397191/james-gunn-reportedly-even-wrote-dialogue-for-avengers-infinity-war http://screencrush.com/avengers-infinity-war-james-gunn-guardians-dialogue/ http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/the-avengers/news/a858884/avengers-infinity-war-drax-scene-guardians-of-the-galaxy-james-gunn/ https://movieweb.com/avengers-infinity-war-james-gunn-wrote-guardians-scenes/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/avengers-infinity-war-changed-a-guardians-galaxy-scene-1106320 http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/james-gunn-wrote-dialogue-avengers-infinity-war/ TheNicaraguan (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel for this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

In the article the three-day opening weekend box office number for China is given as $200 million. This exaggerated figure is from an article on the Monday after the opening weekend. The actual numbers as reported today are:

Source 1) Box Office Mojo has a figure of $191.03 million ^[1]

Source 2) Chinese box Office tracking by Entgroup has a figure of $189.48 million ^[2]

The point of an encyclopedia is to provide the most accurate information available not to push some marketing agenda of a corporation through exaggerated headlines. Since the article is locked I cannot edit it. Could someone with appropriate credentials go in and correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O bliv Ian (talk • contribs) 13:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

141.226.217.237 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 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

) 15:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

In an effort to be civil and listen to opposing views, I would like to discuss my contribution about the post credit scene. I feel that placing the content of the aforementioned scene in the plot of the movie proper as if that is where the scene takes place is both inaccurate and misleading. If someone watched the movie for the first time based on reading the plot, then they would wonder why the Nick Fury scene didn't occur along with the other disintegrations. Do we see Fury and Hill disintegrate while we see the others disintegrate? No. We see it later at the very end of the movie, which is why it should be included at the end of the plot summary. Please consider Godfather II as an example. The plot summary of that movie is presented the way it is presented in the film, not chronologically. The Hateful Eight also comes to mind as it contains a similar scene that chronologically takes place outside the main timeline. I don't see why this should be any different. We don't present summaries for flashback scenes of other movies before the main timeline. So why is Infinity War such an exception? I welcome a polite and civil rebuttal from you. Allindsey1978 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree: mostly for the reason that, to a reader who hasn't see the film, it could be confusing if these two characters who haven't been mentioned in the plot yet suddenly die without having done anything else, as this phrasing does make it seem like all the deaths happen in the same scene.

talk

) 18:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sandrobost, that confusion does not change if you introduce them at the end of the summary instead, as they are still be introduced to die straight away. The big thing here is that plot summaries are not scene by scene breakdowns of a film, and we always move things around to improve the summary aspect. I disagree with Allindsey's claim that we wouldn't do this with a flashback, as I think we would if it made more sense to summarise it that way. The thought process here is that we have two scenes that take place at the same time and in which the exact same thing happens, so detailing them twice is unnecessary duplication that we avoid with this more concise summary. There is also agreement that we should not be highlighting post credit scenes in a plot summary unless absolutely necessary, and here we have a better option per my previous explanations. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom97, This film's post credit scene acts as a sort of "Let's see how Fury, Hill, and everyone else beyond the Wakandan battlefield and Titan were affected by the snap." Plus, again, their scene does not occur during the film proper so it would still be misleading to someone who had not yet seen the film. We can't assume everyone will see it and conclude that the Nick Fury scene happens later. And, as in most other plot summaries, post credit scenes are always included at the end of the summary regardless of where the content happens chronologically with the rest of the film. Again, this time should be no exception. Furthermore, I disagree with your comments that it an unnecessary duplication. I didn't say twice during the summary that Fury and Hill disintergrated? I said it happened at the moment in the movie that it is actually depicted, which is accurate regardless of whether or not it saves time to read that it happens earlier in the summary. If that is your argument, check Pulp Fiction's summary. It is written as it is shown in the movie, and chronologically, that movie is all over the place, yet we don't restructure the summary to reflect chronology.Allindsey1978 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if someone hasn't seen the film and thinks this scene takes place at a different point than it actually does. If that was an issue, then there would be a requirement to detail every scene of a film in the order that it appears, which is not the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Allindsey1978 and Sandrobost. Why wouldn't we leave Fury at the end. That's when it happens in the movie. I tried to revert back to Allindsey1978's earlier revision but see that the page is locked. I guess certain people decide which edits are worthy or not, and if those certain people's only argument is that they think their's is better, then lock the page so no one else can edit. Way to go Adamstom97 for disregarding other people's opinions and the possibility that their way might be preferable to everyone else. Frankgrimes1970 (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The topic is the order of events in the summary as they relate to the movie's sequence of events. Frankgrimes1970's comments are a bit off topic of the discussion, although I can see how it might look like that to him. Why IS the page locked for editing? Allindsey1978 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think mentioning that their deaths happen in a post-credits scene gives the reader context for why they were not mentioned in the plot before dying, as they will likely know that a post-credits scene has different "rules". I'm not so much for moving this part to the end, but I think the text should make clear in some way that this does not happen in the actual movie, but rather in the post-credits scene.

talk

) 16:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sandrobost, that was my reasoning when I originally tried to make to change. Since it doesn't happen in the film proper, again it could lead to confusion for someone who hasn't seen regardless of if we think it shouldn't matter or not. After the fact, it might make sense, but before the fact it won't, especially to someone who hasn't seen it yet. We've already seen the movie. We can't unsee it. Allindsey1978 (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, please take your uncivil insinuations elsewhere Frankgrimes1970. Secondly, if this scene was somewhere else in the main body of the film but still separated from the other snappening sequence, we would put them together because they are happening at the same time and there is no point explaining the same thing twice when we only have 700 words max. So why should we treat it any differently just because it is after the credits? Through numerous talk page discussions across many different film articles it has become clear that we should not, and that we should only note the special instance of a post-credits scene if it is necessary such as the inclusion of a scene that has nothing to do with the rest of the plot (which this one clearly is not). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should take your "my opinions are right and everyone else is wrong" attitude elsewhere Adamstom97. The other's arguments are just as valid and have just as much merit as yours, but since they aren't yours, you dismiss them. By the way, putting it at the end of the summary takes up no more space then incorrectly placing it with the rest of the snappening. Props for the word "snappening" however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankgrimes1970 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I have not dismissed anyone's argument, I just disagree with them. And the amount of space taken up isn't really that big a deal. There is just no good reason to discuss the same scene twice simply because the film does it. It is called a summary for a reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Josh Brolin won Best Motion Capture performance at the Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association Awards 2018. Shouldn't that be in the accolades section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.83.25 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

When you put a citation on a sentence of text, it looks like that source is meant to verify the content of that sentence. I've mentioned this a bunch of times on these articles, most recently at Talk:Avengers: Endgame#‎So, is it time yet? and most memorably (as in its the earliest I can remember off the top of my head) at Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2/GA1. Virtually every editor I've spoken to about the issue outside of two or three who primarily edit these articles has agreed with me on this point, and yet we are still doing it. It would be one thing if it read Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man, the leader and benefactor of the Avengers, who is a self-described genius, billionaire, playboy, and philanthropist with electromechanical suits of armor of his own making.[8][9] so that the citations are attached to the sentence whose "main point" is that Actor X plays Character Y, but the separate line Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man: is sitting right there waiting for the citations to be added, while the citations are attached not there but to a separate sentence that specifically states that Tony is The leader and benefactor of the Avengers, who is a self-described genius, billionaire, playboy, and philanthropist with electromechanical suits of armor of his own making. There's literally no excuse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, wouldn’t the character description be verified by the film itself, as the plot is? Wouldn’t it fall under

WP:UNIVERSE even if it were to be verified by a citation? 2.51.18.236 (talk

) 10:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@2.51.18.236: Technically they should, but these character descriptions are usually all written before the movie comes out based on the previous films. The above-quoted "self-described genius, billionaire, playboy, and philanthropist" is an almost direct quote from Joss Whedon's The Avengers (or, rather, a trailer for the same; the line was famous long before the film came out) -- I suspect it really should have quotation marks. That was the fourth of nine films thus far in which Tony appeared. The character descriptions are really a hodge-podge of various primary sources, some of which contradict each other:

• Captain America: Civil War describes T'Challa as a "prince" even though his father dies early on in the film and certain (most?) official translations of the film into foreign languages assumed that T'Challa was either king or "presumptive king" immediately on the death of his father (Rhodey called him "Your Highness" but it seems Hayashi Kanji, the Japanese subtitler, interpreted that as a U.S. military colonel not knowing the proper form of address for a king, as he translated it heika), and I don't think even the English version of the film explicitly referred to him as a "prince" either before or after his father's death; Black Panther (film) retcons the whole thing by saying that Wakanda has a highly complicated royal succession law involving ritual battle between the presumptive heir and anyone (?) who wishes to challenge for the crown, and he is enthroned (and then dethroned, and then presumably re-enthroned offscreen) afterward, but our article on the film simply describes him as the "king".
• All three articles on the Thor films describe the title character as the "crown prince" of Asgard, but we are not given any hint anywhere in those films that Asgard has a crown prince, and in fact it is heavily implied by Loki's machinations throughout the trilogy (and in The Avengers) that he was somehow "in the running" whether or not his brother was alive. Similarly to Wakanda, Asgard is presented as having a complicated succession process that is not fully explained to us, but we take the final scene of Thor: Ragnarok as making Thor the "king" (even though Asgard itself was destroyed), and so in this article we describe him thus, even though immediately after that scene we are shown the beginning of an attack on their spaceship, and this film heavily implies that every single person on the ship except Thor and Hulk was killed immediately thereafter, so for all but the first scene of this film he is essentially king of nothing.
• etc...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And yes, I know one of the Russos stated in an interview after the film was released that actually only half of the Asgardians were killed and that Valkyrie was still alive, but that is definitely not what the film itself says, and plenty of non-primary sources could be located to support this. And the "half" thing doesn't work when a bunch of the characters who are killed onscreen probably could have been spared had things gone down differently -- clearly a battle was fought, and it didn't work like the flashback to Gamora's childhood. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

According to this source, he only voiced the character and did not film any scenes. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Added here with original IGN source and adding to the production article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I wish these articles would stop relying on IGN; it's not an unreliable source, but it violates

WP:V to cite sources that block themselves out in certain regions via auto-translation, which changes the meaning of the relevant text, preventing Wikipedians who live in, say, Japan from verifying the content. (Or maybe it violates V that oftentimes the information we cite them for is so peripheral to their main point that it gets lost in translation, to the point where one might wonder if they really meant what we are citing them for?) Thankfully in this case the article in question is visible to me (I guess no one in Japan but me cares?), and the relevant text of the articles is One of those challenges involved recreating Hugo Weaving's Red Skull without the involvement of Weaving himself. Actor Ross Marquand may have taken over that role this time, but [...] [t]his version of Red Skull was created entirely through CGI, using references materials from Captain America: The First Avenger. [...] Surprisingly, this means that Marquand wasn't ever actually present during filming, as many had assumed. Leaving quote here so it's not lost to the aether if IGN ever decide to translate it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 04:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:V does not say anything against using references like this, and frankly, that doesn't sound like an editor issue. We can't control how other websites run their site in other countries. Additionally, all of these articles are archived so for you personally, you can always examine them through the archive if it isn't rendering properly at the live url. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 18:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources that are not accessible because the publisher chooses to block out the original (English) version in certain regions in favour of a translation, and the translation doesn't actually say what we attribute to it, most definitely are in violation of

interpretation of an obscure side-remark made in an English source, and the official Japanese translation cannot be interpreted in that way, then unless we assume a translation error (not impossible, but not likely) that is also a violation of NOR and (kinda) V. Ideally content about highly popular movies should be attributable to multiple reliable sources, so this really shouldn't be an issue anyway: I said I wish these articles would stop relying on IGN (emphasis added) for this reason. I should be able to tag a statement cited to an English IGN article whose English version I can't access, and whose Japanese version doesn't appear to verify the content, as needing a better source, and you or whoever else should be able to go "Well, how about this Variety source? It says the same thing anyway." Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 09:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:V says "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible" and "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". My personal view though is that if we have a superior source then we should use that instead of the inferior source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 11:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@

inappropriate interpretation of something the source didn't actually mean to say. It doesn't apply in this case (thankfully!), but you know I'm right on the general issue: if I click on a link to a cited source, and can't verify the content in the source because the information isn't there, then the content is unsourced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 02:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 You are right on the issue of using questionable translations, but there is a difference between a source being inaccessible and a source being inaccessible to a specific editor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, Emir. The whole source isn't automatically inaccessible because one editor can't access it, when the majority of others can. As I said, we can't control how other websites work in non-English countries. So I'm sorry you're having issues accessing the site, but it isn't really our issue since it is perfectly accessible to many other readers and editors. I wouldn't be complaining if the roles were reversed and I tried to access a Japanese site that resulted in a site-translate or a Google Translate version. I'd understand it comes with the territory and would assume good faith on the editor who added it that the content cited by it is accurately represented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"Thanos arrives, revealing his plans to be necessary to ensure the survival of a universe threatened by overpopulation."

Makes it seem as if Thanos revealed to the characters that the universe was overpopulated. Also "survival of the universe" feels weird, since Thanos doesn't seem to believe that the universe itself wouldn't survive. Also, if taken literally, makes it seems like the plans themselves are actually necessary, rather than it just being something he said or believes.

Maybe something like...

"Thanos arrives, and claims that his plans are motivated by his belief that the universe is threatened by overpopulation."

Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I corrected some misinformation in the plot and added relevant details to the same. My edit was reverted by an editor with the explanation that it was too detailed. I've undone the revert here. I look forward to views of editors on whether my edit is actually too detailed or is it okay. Thanks, Lourdes 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Adam was correct. Per

WP:PLOTBLOAT: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail."--TriiipleThreat (talk

) 16:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think these two were fine, but this one was too much. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, even the Gamora dialogue is too much. Contextually, Thanos’ love is already implied by his success in retrieving the stone. We don’t have to spell it out.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The summary is still about 50 words under the limit and that part speaks to the relationship between the two characters. It's not necessarily something I would include if I wrote it myself, but I don't object to its inclusion. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The 700 word limit is just a bright line. We should be more worried about the spirit of the guideline and not use anymore verbiage than what is needed.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with whatever the editors decide. I would say that at least we should include relevant plot details, as follows: (1) It's not clear at all reading the current plot that Gamora is the one most loved by Thanos; one is left to infer that. I would suggest the same be included in as less words as you may wish; but do include it (2) While it is correct that the group tries to form a plan to defeat Thanos, what is misleading is that the group finally does not agree on any plan, and it is left to Quill to push a plan down their throats.

I do feel these two details are not minutiae or scene-by-scene breakdowns or even technical details. These are very relevant to the plot, in my opinion. Rest, I'll go by what you guys think. Lourdes 02:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Triiiple that your first point is already covered in the current wording. As for your second point, you are getting too much into the minutiae of a scene that doesn't even give us an outcome—they clearly come up with a plan (together or not) off screen. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It's opening weekend of $640.5 million was the biggest before it was surpassed by Avengers:Endgame Hellyeah752 (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC) This page still lists it as the fourth highest grossing movie of all time; it is now the fifth.

 Done Breawycker (talk to me!) 01:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The Cast section describes Bruce Banner as An Avenger and a genius scientist who, because of exposure to gamma radiation, transforms into a monster when enraged or agitated.^{[dubious – discuss]}

That template linked to a nonexistent Talk:Avengers: Infinity War#Dubious discussion section (0 search results for "dubious" in the archives of this Talk page), so i'm creating the section in order to make my suggestion:

i suspect someone called the description dubious because (as previously noted in the Plot section), during the film Banner quickly becomes "unable to transform into the Hulk". So maybe change the description of Banner from

An Avenger and a genius scientist who, because of exposure to gamma radiation, transforms into a monster when enraged or agitated.

to

An Avenger and a genius scientist who (in previous films) temporarily (and not always willingly) transformed into a monster when enraged or agitated, but (in this film) finds himself unable to do so no matter how he tries.

(or something like that? maybe skip the bits in parentheses, or change the parentheses to commas)

...or is there some other reason someone tagged that line dubious?

71.121.143.4 (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

If you edit the section, you can see that the reason parameter contains the comment "This character description is definitely inaccurate for this film. It probably needs to be changed." Argento Surfer (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the wording is perfectly fine. The fact that Banner is unable to transform in this movie alone is addressed in the Plot section but does not affect his character's abilities. He doesn't lose the ability to transform just because it doesn't happen in this movie. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. @Hijiri88:, you added the note. Would you mind to specify what you think is missing, or how it should be changed? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? We can't say he transforms when enraged if that doesn't happen at any point in this film. Ideally I would like to overhaul all these unsourced character descriptions, but the ones that aren't even accurate to this film. I don't remember, but I expect this description has survived largely unchanged since early 2018 when Marvel were actively trying to mislead audiences in the marketing. (It's not quite as bad as Iron Man 3 which includes a minibio of Trevor Slattery cited to three sources that could not possibly have known about him.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If we want to parse his description that's fine, but he does display his power when he transforms from Hulk to Banner. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you don't have a suggestion for how to improve it? Would changing "transforms into a monster when enraged or agitated" to "can transform into a monster" work for you? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I don't see a need to change the text at all, given the fact that the rest of the paragraph details the fact that the character refuses to transform, if we do then it should be as small a change as possible. Something along the lines of:

An Avenger and genius scientist who, because of exposure to gamma radiation, typically transforms into a monster when enraged or agitated.

That would be sufficient, in my mind. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

By virtue of the fact that Captain Marvel is the next in the MCU series after this movie, I feel like this article needs include a link to that movie somewhere in its lede; somehwere in the entire article, in fact. Currently, the lede mentions Avengers: Endgame since the two were filmed back-to-back and Endgame follows as a "direct sequel" to Infinity War, but I would like to point out that the post-credit sequence in Captain Marvel actually takes place during the three-week period set between the two Avengers movies.

The reason I'm putting this message here is that, whilst I would normally just insert the link myself, I'm struggling to find a good place to include it and would appreciate some suggestions. Thanks. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't just link the next MCU film in each article. If it is a sequel then that makes sense, but being set in the same universe is not a good reason to include a link to a different film. The post-credits scene may hint at the character, but Captain Marvel has nothing to do with this film. If people want to see the order of all the MCU films, they can look in the navbox at the bottom of the page or go to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don't think these movies are sequels (or prequels) to one another then you're kidding yourself. The post credit scene in Captain Marvel doesn't "hint at" anything; it explicitly includes several characters from Avengers: Infinity War and is quite clearly set after the events of that movie. In my opinion, this warrants it being linked too in the article proper, and not just in a navbox. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. These movies are intertwined enough to warrant a mention/link somewhere in article, although I wouldn't do so in the lead. Captain Marvel is a very minor aspect here. Perhaps a brief statement in the sequel section about the releases of Ant-Man and the Wasp and Captain Marvel following this film would suffice (we would still maintain that Endgame is the "direct sequel"). There's only one sentence there now anyway, and that's odd by the way. If not there, then at the very least, link it in the "See also" section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Doi. I completely missed the fact that there was a Sequel section; makes perfect sense that it be included there. I've drafted this as an initial effort, though it could obviously use some citations:

The direct sequel, Avengers: Endgame, was released on April 26, 2019, with the Russos returning to direct, and Markus and McFeely once again writing the screenplay. Prior to Endgame's release, both Ant-Man and the Wasp and Captain Marvel directly referenced or tied into the events of Infinity War.

The start of the first sentence and the entirty of the second sentence are my amendments. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this change, and explained why this has never been done before. The stance with shared universe films has always been that they are not actual sequels or prequels to each other merely because they are set in the same universe. They aren't even really spin-offs since they are each developed from scratch. If there is particular story or character connections between films then that can be discussed in the article with sources (and commentary if required), but if readers just want to see what film was released next in the universe then they can go to the main MCU page or list of MCU films to see that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Infinity War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change it from being 4th highest to 5th highest grossing.2A00:23C6:5492:4300:59A8:AA00:ADBC:4340 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC) 2A00:23C6:5492:4300:59A8:AA00:ADBC:4340 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Per the hidden comments, 'became' indicates that the film peaked at 4th. So I've attempted to introduce some text that clarifies it for the reader as well. Izno (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)