Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)

Based on
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 and . —El Millo (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * What I was telling you is that Captain America: Civil War, for example, also says, 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 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)
 * 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 Marvel Comics by Stan Lee, 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 ? —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 the Marvel Comics by Stan Lee . - adamstom97 (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All the credits say 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 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 . 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 . IronManCap (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Another problem, this time with Ant-Man and the Wasp. The credits say, 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 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, while Ant-Man and the Wasp and Quantumania would be . 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. 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) 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, I see a lot of films say rather than simply . 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)
 * , 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, 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 , 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 , because just saying "the novel" wouldn't be clear enough. —El Millo (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I think the examples has given should suffice., this does not fail WP:V as it is verifiable - the credited creators match up with the creators on the article, and  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)
 * Well I think the examples has given should suffice., this does not fail WP:V as it is verifiable - the credited creators match up with the creators on the article, and  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. —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 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 is basically the same as simply saying, 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 to, 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)

"The Avengers (2011 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers_(2011_film)&redirect=no 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  until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"The Avengers (2011)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers_(2011)&redirect=no 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  until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"killing" vs. "mortally wounding"
"Loki escapes after killing Coulson." Coulson is still alive after Loki escapes, however. I therefore changed "killing" to "mortally wounding", confident that I had made a worthy if minor correction. The edit was nonetheless reverted, with the edit summary "he is still killed by Loki". I restored the edit, saying "Yes, but not before Loki escapes. It could imaginably be something like 'dealing a death blow to', but 'mortally wounding' is correct and more so than 'killing'. That the death occurred is immediately confirmed in the sentence following [thus rendering it unnecessary to mention Coulson's death as having occurred before it actually did]." The editor who had reverted my change was letting this stand, but someone else changed it back to "killing" and said I "need to discuss this on the talk page and establish consensus for this wording before it can stand in this article." I asked at the Teahouse if this was actually necessary and I learned that it was, unless I elected one of the other acceptable WP:BRD options. I would prefer to discuss this with the editor involved, but there are two of them and so I'm posting on the talk page as advised. Can we agree that Loki, before escaping, mortally wounds rather than kills Coulson, if Coulson is still alive when Loki escapes? Bret Sterling (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging @Adamstom.97 as a courtesy. While the reverts were justified, you should not have restored your preferred version once it was known to be contested in the first place (as per WP:BRD), and likely should have come here sooner. Focusing on the content, plot summaries typically tend to be WP:CONCISE and provide readers with the most direct information in the least amount of words possible to convey what happened in the media, rather than getting hung up over these minute details and verbiage changes. Ultimately, Loki attacks Coulson and he dies shortly after. The main point to get across in this plot (I emphasized this here as this is not a point-by-point breakdown of all events as it is meant to summarize the content), is that Coulson was killed by Loki. Given we see Coulson's death not too long after Loki escapes, I don't see much issue in retaining "'Loki escapes after killing Coulson" because that is ultimately what happens. I could, however, see something to the effect of Loki escapes after attacking and ultimately killing Coulson, though that carries on the info longer than is necessary here, and it is not technically helpful to state Coulson was "mortally wounded" if we are trying to convey that he actually succumbed to his wounds and died. In conclusion, I think the WP:STATUSQUO wording ought to remain as it gets the point across quickly and effectively without having the reader toy around the wording for the exact point. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My main concern is going directly from saying Coulson was mortally wounded to saying he is already dead, which is a jump for the reader. We do not have to break down each moment in the film exactly as it happens because this is a summary, and sometimes it makes sense to convey things differently through more concise text than is done in the film. While it is possible to read ""Loki escapes after killing Coulson" and say "that's not right, Coulson didn't die until after Loki escaped", I think it is also perfectly fine to interpret it as Loki's act of killing Coulson taking place before his escape. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, adamstom97, for clarifying your concern about the jump from "mortally wounded" to "already dead". To address this, I propose adding "subsequent" to the sentence following, making it: "Fury uses Coulson's subsequent death to motivate the Avengers to work together as a team." This should maintain the narrative flow without causing confusion. Although "mortally wounded" generally implies imminent death, this addition ensures clarity. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Bret Sterling (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That works for me. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you. Bret Sterling (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)