Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)/Archive 6

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 65 external links on The Avengers (2012 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers11.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifco.ie/website/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/SearchViewFilm/948629C6A532F747802579DF004C399C?OpenDocument&OpenUp=True
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118016757?refCatId=13
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IJE4H2vRr4
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36742
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/07/26/chris-hemsworth-shares-joss-whedons-fascination-with-avengers-drama/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38207
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/v-star-morena-baccarin-actresses-95741
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118000573?refCatId=1236
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117921854?refCatId=1350
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a4QS2Pyn4T3M&refer=us
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmLT0tmSrWY
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.superherohype.com/news/thornews.php?id=9019
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118017689?refCatId=10
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.superherohype.com/news/featuresnews.php?id=9294
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118025864.html?categoryId=13&cs=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nmfilm.com/article.php?id=1644&title=Governor+Bill+Richardson+and+Marvel+Studios+Announce+Largest+Movie+Production+in+New+Mexico+History
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-gwyneth-paltrow-avengers%2C0%2C311022.story
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arri.com/news.html?article=952&cHash=dfcb6e994d5cb499a9cf42d227ef3213
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arri.com/news.html?article=950&cHash=6adfecc263fdc3b7765b4e2f93a73f81
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BsuTCPX9?url=http://latino-review.com/2012/06/11/spider-man-the-avengers-sort/ to http://latino-review.com/2012/06/11/spider-man-the-avengers-sort/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=34844
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111014005986/en/%E2%80%9CMarvel%E2%80%99s-Avengers%E2%80%9D-Trailer-Downloaded-10-Million-Times
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38375
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=741921
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118052078?refCatId=13
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=33259
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/apr/27/marvel-avengers-assemble-worst-film-title?newsfeed=true
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3443&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=1&sort=osgross&order=DESC&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3431
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=1&sort=osgross&order=DESC&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/weekend/yearly/?yr=2012&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/australia/?yr=2012&wk=17&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/?yr=2012&wk=17&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2012&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?view2=allmovies&view=company&studio=buenavista.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=open&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=single&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3436&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-midnight-dark-knight-rises-20120720%2C0%2C2133469.story
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3437&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/f-th.htm?page=Sat&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/f-th.htm?page=Sun&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3438&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3211&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3442&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/theateravg.htm?page=THTRWAVG&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/?page=byrecord&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3456&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3445&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3453&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/?adjust_yr=2012&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/moreweekends.htm?page=2&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=avengers11.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/fastest.htm?page=100&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=89927
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-avengers-20120503%2C0%2C1815592.story?track=rss
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20120502%2FREVIEWS%2F120509997
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/movies/robert-downey-jr-in-the-avengers-directed-by-joss-whedon.html?_r=1&ref=movies
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20120424/ENTERTAINMENT05/120429812/review-have-a-blast-with-avengers--%26pager%3Dfull_story
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/67lBFxFbN?url=http://teenchoiceawards.com/pdf/TEENCHOICE2012WaveOneNoms.pdf to http://teenchoiceawards.com/pdf/TEENCHOICE2012WaveOneNoms.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DZOQ92zN?url=http://oscar.go.com/nominees to http://oscar.go.com/nominees
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Ea1IEhIi?url=http://www.saturnawards.org/39th_Annual_Saturn_Awards.pdf to http://www.saturnawards.org/39th_Annual_Saturn_Awards.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=33806

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Evans' prosthetic jaw
As per this, he wore a prosthetic jaw to cover his beard which he needed for filming Snowpiercer. -- Kailash29792   (talk)  08:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Cast" section not wrapping around the cast photo
On my screen, the cast photo (The Avengers Cast 2010 Comic-Con cropped.jpg) is just a skosh taller than the Downey paragraph. What's happened is, the Evans paragraph has been given an artificial right-margin equal to the photo's default buffering. This leaves a wound of white space under the photo and to the right of the Evans paragraph, that's actually taller than the photo itself! What's happened here? This is the only article on which I've seen this error. —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  21:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It has to do with Template:Cast list break. I already mentioned this to on his talk page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I have found a solution (see Block quote next to floating content), but I just need to test this style implementation with Cast list break and ensure it does not disrupt CLbreak's purpose of complying with MOS:LISTGAP. The next time I have some lengthy time (probably middle of next week), I can take a look at this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All set. Text will now properly wrap around conflicting things (images, infoboxes, etc.). If not visible yet for you, you may need to purge the article for it to update. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on The Avengers (2012 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5zx6rWZsv?url=http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/03/avengers-star-cobie-smulders-on-spending-her-hiatus-in-a-catsuit.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/03/avengers-star-cobie-smulders-on-spending-her-hiatus-in-a-catsuit.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5zx6nwqVL?url=http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/01/21/war-machine-movie-don-cheadle-avengers to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/01/21/war-machine-movie-don-cheadle-avengers
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-gwyneth-paltrow-avengers,0,311022.story
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67kWgaQqv?url=http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail to http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248055b504
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66SNt5Drf?url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Hello-Andhero-say-The-Avengers-to-the-baddies/Article1-831005.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Hello-Andhero-say-The-Avengers-to-the-baddies/Article1-831005.aspx
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67L3iGw7p?url=http://uk.marvel.com/avengers-assemble/ to http://uk.marvel.com/avengers-assemble/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120613171948/http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2012-06-10-international-box-office-snow-white-and-the-huntsman-grabs-246-million to http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2012-06-10-international-box-office-snow-white-and-the-huntsman-grabs-246-million
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-midnight-dark-knight-rises-20120720,0,2133469.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607222847/http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2013-05-12-global-iron-man-3-reaches-949-million to http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2013-05-12-global-iron-man-3-reaches-949-million
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-avengers-20120503,0,1815592.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 43 external links on The Avengers (2012 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifco.ie/website/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/SearchViewFilm/948629C6A532F747802579DF004C399C?OpenDocument&OpenUp=True
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5zxBnzavF?url=http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/04/25/captain-america-avengers-chris-evans-iron-man to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/04/25/captain-america-avengers-chris-evans-iron-man
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/07/26/chris-hemsworth-shares-joss-whedons-fascination-with-avengers-drama/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38207
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/heat-vision/v-star-morena-baccarin-actresses-95741
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a4QS2Pyn4T3M&refer=us
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5yDgC3nXJ?url=http://www.hitfix.com/articles/exclusive-edward-norton-s-agent-responds-to-marvel-ceo-s-statement to http://www.hitfix.com/articles/2010-7-11-exclusive-edward-norton-s-agent-responds-to-marvel-ceo-s-statement?m=k
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118025864.html?categoryId=13&cs=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nmfilm.com/article.php?id=1644&title=Governor+Bill+Richardson+and+Marvel+Studios+Announce+Largest+Movie+Production+in+New+Mexico+History
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5yXk7CuQp?url=http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/movie-news/gwyneth-paltrow-will-probably-appear-in-iron-man-3-and-possibly-in-the-avengers.php to http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/movie-news/gwyneth-paltrow-will-probably-appear-in-iron-man-3-and-possibly-in-the-avengers.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arri.com/news.html?article=952&cHash=dfcb6e994d5cb499a9cf42d227ef3213
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arri.com/news.html?article=950&cHash=6adfecc263fdc3b7765b4e2f93a73f81
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=34844
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38375
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Bsy4Kw3d?url=http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/20120514_Avengers_v2.pdf to http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/20120514_Avengers_v2.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3443&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=1&sort=osgross&order=DESC&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=1&sort=osgross&order=DESC&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/weekend/yearly/?yr=2012&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/australia/?yr=2012&wk=17&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/?yr=2012&wk=17&p=.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604102015/http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2012-05-04-the-avengers-grabs-187-million-from-midnight-shows to http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2012-05-04-the-avengers-grabs-187-million-from-midnight-shows
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2012&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?view2=allmovies&view=company&studio=buenavista.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=open&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=single&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3436&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3437&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/f-th.htm?page=Sat&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/f-th.htm?page=Sun&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3438&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3211&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3442&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/theateravg.htm?page=THTRWAVG&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/?page=byrecord&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3456&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3445&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3453&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/?adjust_yr=2012&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/moreweekends.htm?page=2&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=avengers11.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/fastest.htm?page=100&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/movies/robert-downey-jr-in-the-avengers-directed-by-joss-whedon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Iron Man's suit failure in space
Wasn't the suit power knocked out by the EMP from the nuclear blast? Running out of power at that exact moment would have been incredible timing. Besides, nothing that I remember indicates that the suit was magnetically shielded. 66.116.44.106 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember it being a little ambiguous. I revised the wording to a more general "suit loses power". Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

End credits
Why is the end credit section constantly being removed from this pages it is still a scene in the film. Unfortunately there are still people who are yet to watch the film that check here for the plot to the film, they then don't watch the all credits as this article refuses to state that there is an end credit scene. If it is not relevant to the page then why is it part of the film. The plot section is for all scenes from the moment the film starts to the moment it ends and all scenes should be included. Marvelmaniac2909 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The plot section is for the plot, not individual scene or moment breakdowns. The end credits scene for this film is a fun beat, but it does not add anything to the plot so should not be mentioned in the plot section. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it can be omitted and a reader will still understand the story, then it's not significant to the plot. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The film's setting in time
I think the film's setting in time should be discussed, but I'm not sure where. Plot seems like the wrong place to me because the film itself doesn't establish a year (that I recall/noticed). Agents of SHIELD fixed the film in 2012, but Civil War and Spider-Man Homecoming has it firmly established in 2009. Short of expanding the sequel section to include the film's impact on other franchises, I'm not sure where exactly this information would fit. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I too agree that the plot is not the appropriate place. Production is probably a good spot, but where exactly, if at all, I'm not sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Phase 2 films also assumed that Avengers was in 2012, as did Civil War which broke the idea that Avengers was set a year after all the Phase 1 films, something that Homecoming does not ignore. Perhaps it would be best to discuss all this at the main MCU page since it doesn't really apply to a single film? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

True! The Marvel Guy36 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man:Homecoming should be given a proper timeline by Marvel & Sony officials. The Marvel Guy36 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The film is set from May 1 to May 4, 2012. WikiSmartLife (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2020
Please add to categories: "Films shot in Pittsburgh" KayFahr (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020
2601:500:8200:2BB0:18CE:44F2:C11F:EC4B (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what you want done. Please describe it in a "replace X with Y" form. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-rs
Showbiz411 is not an RS, per USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. But it is used as a ref in this article - currently number 85. Making a claim. That (not unusual for this site) that in the next clause is shown to be false. I think it should be deleted, as it is a non-rs. --2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed both statements, since being reportedly filmed in 3D by an unreliable source and being immediately refuted by an actor on Twitter is barely relevant. —El Millo (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Additions to see also section
At the end of the page it lists the three sequels to this film, and then mentions an episode of What If...? that reimagines events of this film. I think it would be helpful to mention that scenes from this film have been revisited in other Marvel productions, including a flashback in the Hawkeye TV series and an altered timeline version in Avengers: Endgame. Maybe add a paragraph about this. 23.84.54.191 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not really what WP:SEEALSO is for. Still, perhaps we could add a link to the first episode of Hawkeye? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Hawkeye opening warrants a link here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Me neither. We shouldn't include every reference or small recreation of scenes. —El Millo (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JustRaffy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Shawarma Post Credits Scene
In the post-credits scene, the Avengers team up to eat shawarma in silence following the battle of New York. Why shouldn't it be added to the plot section of the main article? Marc Raphael Felix (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FILMPLOT. it's a joke scene and has not direct affect on the main events. The scene is covered in the production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure it's a joke scene. Why does that matter? It's still a scene and all other Marvel movies have their post credit scenes listed on their pages. (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * They do if they are relevant to the plot. This one is not. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Because the plot is a summary of the salient information in the movie. The scene isn't. Just becuase "information X" is in "source Y" does not automatically mean it goes in an article, or in a particular section of an article. Nightscream (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022
Please add the following template to the article: 2601:241:300:B610:D80F:9308:353B:DFF7 (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Aaron Liu (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

consensus on Avengers 5 & 6
Current consensus is to NOT include Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars here because, while they are Avengers franchise films, given the nature of the MCU, they have less correlation to the Avengers films that have released to date.

Where was this discussed? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * started here, and may have continued elsewhere which I'm checking. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Sequel section
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, , and , they feel the See Also note pointing to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is sufficient. 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)
 * What established policy are you referring to? There is nothing on sequel sections at 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 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. JOE BRO  64  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 &#124; 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. ~ HAL  333  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)
 * 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)
 * 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: . —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)
 * 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: 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)