Talk:Avengers: Infinity War

The Infinity Gauntlet

How does this article not include a single mention of The Infinity Gauntlet or Jim Starlin? Seems like a massive oversight... Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right. Its in the first line of the production article but not here. We must of overlooked it when we summarized that content here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Official website

Please add this address, but then I protection prohibits the change: http://marvel.com/avengers - Medjay Bayek (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? We have the one for this specific movie there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Have meant change. Medjay Bayek (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to change? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

From https://marvel.com/movies/movie/223/avengers_infinity_war to http://marvel.com/avengers. Medjay Bayek (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The current site is more specific to this film.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot removal

Please remove the plot. Could be become spoil.... Blackpanther95007 (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Removing the plot because of spoilers is a form of censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Box office projections for unreleased films

Because I mentioned this article and its inclusion of box office projections before the film's release date while opening a discussion at WP:FILM, I am notifying this page of such discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Box Office Predictions. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Music

I believe this article has a good paragraph of stuff that applies to our music section here, but I don't want to read it at the moment because I am trying to avoid Ready Player One spoilers, so I thought I would just drop it here in case anyone else wanted to go ahead and add it now. Otherwise, I'll get to it in a few days once I've seen the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit on it right at the end of the article I'll add in here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Infinity War budget revealed at $300 million

The Hollywood Reporter revealed in their interview with Marvel Studios VP of Production, Victoria Alonso, that Avengers: Infinity War's budget is $300 million dollars: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvels-victoria-alonso-keeping-avengers-infinity-war-budget-1099377?utm_source=twitter. Hope we can add that into Infinity War's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Deadline has first official projection's for Infinity War's opening weekend to be at $200M plus

http://deadline.com/2018/04/avengers-infinity-war-record-box-office-opening-1202358812/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

IMAX poster for Infinity War has Danai Gurira's name billed in between Idris Elba and Peter Dinklage

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 / White Wolf
• 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, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

First full length feature fully shot IMAX film?

I'm seeing news articles that state that this is first feature COMPLETELY shot with IMAX cameras. There is a distinction because "Wings of Courage" in 1995 was the first dramatic feature, but only 40mins long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk)

Sequel Information: Update

The Russo Brothers dropped the Title of "Infinity War 2" in 2014 saying that the two movies would have completely different identities. Recently the Russo Brothers tweeted that the reason that the title is still "Untitled Sequel" is due to the fact that the next movie's title will give away a lot of information on what happens in the first movie (also found here: ). GodsHaveMercy (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't the Untitled Avengers film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The article talks about the Untitled Avengers film, previously titled "Infinity War: Part 2" but was dropped in "favor of an unannounced title". Not only have the Russo Brothers implied that the title of the sequel will give away parts of the first movie, but also Marvel Studios President stated its "because its a spoiler for what comes before it". The original article states that this sequel will be released in 2019 as the "(currently final) avengers film". GodsHaveMercy (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Again. That all has to do with the sequel film and this is about Infinity War and makes proper note of the sequel with current info. So I don't really know what you want added or changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Most ambitious crossover event in history

Might be worth mentioning how the marketing of the movie called it the "most ambitious crossover event in history" which led to a lot of people online making fun of that statement by providing other examples of arguably more ambitious crossover events. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/avengers-infinity-war-marvel-ambitious-crossover-event-twitter-highlights-superhero-movie-a8266221.html CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Steve Rogers = Nomad?

I've seen a new [post] in the official Instagram account of the Russo Brothers, that Chris Evans is Nomad. Then I've edited Steve Rogers' part in the "Cast" section and added the reference. Rnsevenman (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The image is a fan poster, nothing official from Marvel. The Russos have already gone on record he will not be called that in the film, despite embodying the characteristics of Nomad. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: That may be true, but they have since posted the image as their official profile picture. The filmmakers may have A) changed their mind, B) been trolling fans, or C) Marvel continues to blow smoke and mirrors so as to keep the element of surprise within their movies. Common sense says that it's any combination of these scenarios. When the filmmakers state that "Chris Evans is the Nomad" with their profile picture...what else do you need for confirmation (That's not a question, that's a statement).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A director setting FAN ART as a social media picture is absolutely not any indication the character is taking the name. Especially when they have stated in interviews this is not the case. The directors can show support of fan interest/art. That doesn't mean it is factual. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Children of Thanos

@DisneyMetalhead: The source for Ebony Maw only mentions him as being a child of Thanos. This phrase is not mentioned in any of the sources for the other characters. The only semi-official source I could find is from Ryan Penagos' twitter. However, The Nerdist calls this a "metaphorical title" and IGN says its symbolic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually this article from Marvel does call them the Children of Thanos, but does not mention the Black Order. Same goes for Penagos' tweet. Seems the term "Children of Thanos" is replacing "Black Order" in the film. Any suggestions on how to address this? The article reads as if these are separate distinctions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Marvel only seems to be calling them the "Children of Thanos" in their material. However, the Russos have used the term "Black Order" so I think both are okay to include (until the film comes out and we see what is actually used or not). So currently, having "portray children of Thanos and members of his Black Order" seems okay and clear to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Still not sure about using “and” because they do not seem to be separate distinctions. Sources seem to indicate the Children of Thanos ‘’is’’ the Black Order. Furthermore “Children” should be capitalized per sources because this is a group name, not Thanos’ actual offspring.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I see what you meant now. Though once the film's out, we might find it is better to categorize them as simply the "Black Order" or simply the "Children of Thanos". Or both terms could be used interchangeably. We'll see. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

In a slightly related note, is Noary voicing his character too? I might’ve read the Russo’s quote wrong but perhaps it’s a David Prowse situation where he did the voice onset then another actor dubbed him over. Rusted AutoParts 03:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Russo brothers said yes but the role is largely silent.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Regarding the mo-cap bits for these characters, I definitely understand what you mean by "portray" can cover both voicing and mo-cap, but I think it should be mentioned in some form, because just by the listing, I don't think it is easily known these characters are CGI ones. So maybe it simplifies down to something like Terry Notary, Tom Vaughan-Lawlor, and Carrie Coon voice members of the Black Order — the "Children of Thanos": Cull Obsidian, Ebony Maw, and Proxima Midnight, respectively; the trio also performed motion-capture for their characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I changed the wording to take clarify the Black Order/Children of Thanos situation and remove some of the implied redundancy: Thanos' henchmen, known collectively in the comics as the Black Order, appear in the film as the "Children of Thanos": Terry Notary as Cull Obsidian, Tom Vaughan-Lawlor as Ebony Maw, and Carrie Coon as Proxima Midnight. The trio performed motion-capture for their characters in addition to voicing them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that works for me! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is nitpicking, and overthinking things. The characters have been re-worked for the film as the children of Thanos. Thanos raised Nebula and Gamora as siblings and his children/assasins. The same can be said for Proxima Midnight, Black Dwarf/Cull Obsidian, Ebony Maw, and Corvus Glaive. Though they may not (...or may) be his biological children, stating that they are all his children is at this point accurate. Just because an article capitalizes the 'c' in 'children' doesn't make the statement a title. The Russos have stated that the Black Order in these films will be reworked to be his children. That is all they say. It's as simple as they are his children/assassins known as the Black Order.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Capitalizing the 'c' does make it a title and it's done more than once in separate official accounts so it's not a typo. Several sources also state that the name Black Order won't be used in the film. The Nerdist actually addresses your comments directly, "While the movie will refer to them as the Children of Thanos–a metaphorical title, not to be confused with his actual adopted daughters Nebula and Gamora." Again like Favre suggested we can adjust this as needed once the film is released.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it is definitely a title of some sort. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: The Nerdist isn't the most reliable source, and unless they quoted someone involved with the production, I would say their speculation is not solid at all. Capitalizing the 'c' in 'children' absolutely makes it as a title as it becomes a proper noun. The directors have called them the Black Order throughout production and stated it as simple as the fact that the team has been reworked to be Thanos' children. That's it. Once the film's released I'm sure it will be more clear.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As stated before The Nerdist isn’t alone. The phrase “Children of Thanos” is used frequently in both official and unofficial sources. Also the directors saying the term Black Order as part of casual conversation isn’t an indication of anything. The same thing happened with Black Wifow in Iron Man 2, where the name was used repeatedly in marketing materials but never uttered on screen. We are less than a week away. We shall find out for sure then.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

Social: Youtube Channel

Youtube

Sdfgdgdfby (talk) 08:06, 17 April 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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War's final official runtime classified

Well, guys, the BBFC has spoken. #Avengers: #InfinityWar's official runtime has been revealed to be 149 minutes and 9 seconds, making it the longest Marvel movie by 2 minutes ahead of Civil War: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/avengers-infinity-war-film. Guess that 156 minute runtime was a placeholder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.53.84 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done: thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"10-Year Legacy Featurette"

Should we include mention of the "10-Year Legacy Featurette"[1], it has received third party coverage at [2] and [3]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. While the featurette is to promote this film, its content is about the universe as a whole, and that doesn't really fit here. I also don't see it fitting in another MCU article, much like the release of the 10-year "class photo". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article needs to be created then where should things would fit into. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

But this isn't really material that would need to be discussed, so a new article wouldn't need to be created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Budget

We have Marvel's head of production confirming a $300 million budget, but we can't include a budget amount of $353 million from the company filings?? I know Sylt's article said that was the UK spend, but he is wrong. The company filings are for all spending by the company...they even mention much of the turnover (spending) was in the United States, as Georgia is the primary filming location. Sure, they spent a short time in the UK, but is anyone going to argue that they spent $358 million only in the UK for only a tiny portion of the location shooting...especially when papers in Scotland reported last month that they only spent 11 million pounds there. The filings mentioned in Sylt's article have been used for the budgets on many films on wikipedia. Foodles42 (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

THR does not confirm $300 million, it says "a budget upwards of $300 million". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10068015/filing-history Look at "Full accounts". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And that is different from most budget estimates how? most budgets for most films are reported as "estimated at" or "budget of roughly" and so on and we list them. In any event, we have actual documented spending of $353 million. Foodles42 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've been discussing with Foodles on my talk page, the Telegraph article states Accounts for the production show that £248m was spent in the UK on staff and services. (bolding mine) We can't say this is the full budget for the film, because the article doesn't state that. That would be WP:OR. And WP:NOTTRUTH also applies. As to the Scotsman source also provided here by Foodles, I see nowhere where it mentions 11 million pounds. The only monetary amount I see in the article says was worth an estimated £10 million to the economy, and that's not a budgetary number, it's the influx of business the production brought to the area during filming. And finally to the THR article, that is not a confirmed number, only a speculative one on their part to what the budget was, so that shouldn't be used. All in all, WP:NORUSH with this. The sources will come eventually confirming what was spent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all reported budgets are speculative estimates. Very very few are based on an actual primary source showing the numbers. How many BOM citations are there for budget? Almost all use BOM for this and BOM uses reported estimates. So when THR says a budgets upwards of $300 million, that's the estimate....one that was not contradicted by Marvel. And fine, here is the Location Guide stating "local spend of roughly GBP10 million in Scotland, taken from a budget of USD400 million." So I am going to insert the $400 million, as the Location Guide is as authoratative as it gets and they are quite specific. I still think a range should be included, as the infobox rules are quite clear on this, but whatever.Foodles42 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, infobox rules for budget read: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters). Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." Emphasis on "approximate budget" and "estimates". That's what virtually all these budgets are. Here we have conflicting estimates, so following the rules, we include a range. Foodles42 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia since you edited my earlier change to fix the source citations, I assume you are fine with using the well-sourced budget range? Foodles42 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I support a range if the articles conflict, but I have not yet read the WSJ source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. WSJ said "cost close to $300 million". And now Newsweek also used the "rumored $400 million budget", in addition to The Location Guide, which also said $400 million. Given the actual audited company filings for the film show just over $350 million spent, it seems the $400 million is closer to reality, but the rules do dictate the range, which we are good on. Foodles42 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've put the Newsweek source in the infobox. I'm also moving back the Telegraph source to also use in the infobox range. As more sources are reporting on this range, I agree now that it isn't plausible for the £248 million listed to have been spent only in the UK, despite the very misinformed wording the article uses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 no worries, that article definitely botched up the details. :) Foodles42 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The one thing we can be sure of is that Disney has spent at least £248 million on this film. The cost will most likely be higher because Disney won't submit its 2018 costs until later this year or even next year. This is pretty much the only fact we have, and all the other figures are simply estimates (and if they have been published since Wikipedia installed the information we have to be careful of WP:CIRCULAR sourcing). Fluctuating conversion rates also complicate matters: since the beginning of 2017, the dollar has fluctuated in value between $1.20 and $1.45, meaning the dollar equivalent of that £248 million is in the $300–360 million range. I think bearing that in mind the only thing we can be sure of is that the film cost over $300 million. I think for now a range of $300–400 million is a sensible compromise, but we should keep a look out for more HMRC figures so we can pin down a more exact figure. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

5.200.172.185 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 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) 11:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

Farcry12345 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 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) 11:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Role of James Gunn

I understand that he is not included in the infobox as he is an executive producer and not a producer, should this article have more mention of him? A possible source [4] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Another one [5] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

Burj Khalifa [6] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass sell out

Mass sell out [7] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Update

Surely the premier has come on by now, right?

If not, can it be updated immediately after it does?

Even if those that saw the premier are still instructed to keep quiet until the 27th, we can at least change it to say it premiered rather than is scheduled to premier. Once the premier comes on, if it hasn't already. (I don't live in LA or even America so I don't know) 68.150.5.99 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

Extended content

Immediately after Ragnarok of Asgard, the Asgardian ship is a wreck and almost everyone is dead. Thanos overpowers Thor and the Hulk with Power Stone which he acquired from Xandar. Loki gives the Tessaract to Thanos who crushes it and puts the Space Stone on his gauntlet. Loki tries to trick Thanos but is killed. Before Thanos could kill the Hulk, Hemidal sends Hulk to earth. Thanos teleports himself and the Black Order sets the ship to destroy itself. Steven Strange and Wong show up to Tony Stark and asks to join them. While they are talking, a Q-ship shows up and Wong, Stark, Banner and Strange try to help the people in the area. Ebony Maw faces off with Strange, captures him and takes him to the ship. Peter Parker sees the ship, suits up and gets into the battle. Stark sends the iron-spider suit to Parker before he runs out of oxygen. Stark blasts a hole in the wall of ship in the space which sucks Maw out to space and kills him. Strange nearly gets sucked out all the way but Parker saves him. The Guardians of the Galaxy arrive to destroyed Asgardian ship and save Thor. Thor, with Groot and Rocket, goes to Nidavellir to forge a new weapon, Stormbreaker while the rest go to the Collector where the reality gem is. Thor eventually manages to forge the Stormbreaker in Nidavellir and Groot gives his arm as the handle. In Scotland, Wanda Maximoff and Vision are attacked by Proxima Midnight and Corvus Glaive. Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff wound Glaive and Midnight, and they retreat. Vision, Rogers, Rodes, Maximoff, Sam Wilson, Romanoff, and Banner get to Wakanda. Drax, Mantis, Gamora, and Peter Quill reach Unknown. Thanos is already there questioning the Collector. Gamora goes and attacks Thanos and kills him, but Thanos was using the Reality Gem and Thanos has her in his grip. Thanos defeated and incapacitated them and he teleports away. Gamora tried to lie about her knowledge of soul stone, but Thanos totured Nebula until she reveals. Thanos and Gamora go to the planet to get the Soul Stone but Thanos has to sacrifice Gamora in order to get the stone. Gamora tried to kill herself before he could throw her with a double dagger. Then, Thanos gets the Soul Stone. In Wakanda, drop ships reaches and Black Order show up. Thanos's army begin pounding the force field and die. Wakanda army is assembled along with Barnes, Rodey, Falcon, T Challa and Banner in the Hulkbuster while Shuri is working on Vision. Dwarf and Midnight eventually get killed. Thor with Groot and Rocket show up and pushes back the Thanos's army. Meanwhile Stark, Parker and Strange crash land on Titan. The Guardians show up and start attacking each other, and eventually stop the misunderstanding. Thanos shows up on Titan and begins to fight. They are trying to prevent Thanos from closing his hand and Mantis holds Thanos in a state where he can't move. They try to remove the gauntlet but Mantis mentions that Thanos is remorseful of Gamora, and Quill loses control when he realizes that Gamora is dead. He hits Mantis which frees Thanos. Thanos goes full rage mode and slips the gauntlet back. During the battle, Thanos overpowers Strange, Parker, and stabs Stark. Then, Thanos teleports himself away to earth. Vision asks Maximoff to detach the stone from him and destroy. Maximoff is able to shatter the stone but it creates a blast that kills Vision. Thanos shows up and faces off Rogers but quickly overpowers him. Thanos undid what Maximoff had done and restored the stone. He defeats Maximoff quickly and puts the stone in his gauntlet. Thor shows up and stabs Thanos in the chest with Stormbreaker. Thanos hurts but snaps his fingers and disappears. Suddenly, people start to turn to ash and disappear, including Barnes and Challa. In Titan, Quill, Strange, Mantis, Drax and Parker turns to ash and disappear leaving Stark alone sobbing. In mid-credit scene, many people disappear in chaos in New York. Maria Hill starts to disappear as Nick Fury tries to activate a com with Miss Marvel insignia, and begins to disintegrate.

 Not done: Excessive plot from in-universe perspective, not appropriate for the article. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should be less than 700 words and per WP:V, anyone should be able to check that the information is reliable. So until the wide release (April 27) this is not possible.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The film will be released on 25 April in many countries. So it is possible that many wikipedians can check V. Is it your own opinion not to release plot until April 27 or is there any consensus among wikipedians? I think Wikipedia do not band spoilers.

Only a few, not many. Per sources cited in the article, the majority of releases is not until the 27th.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is worldwide. So it is irrelevant to wait until April 27. V is okay with a few countries. It is a systemic bias to hold the film plot until it was released in countries with many wikipedians. Is it your own opinion not to release plot until April 27 or is there any consensus among wikipedians?

For a summary sourced only to viewing the movie itself, wide availability is strongly preferred. However, there is now a spoilerific Forbes article that could be used to source plot points. Similar articles from reliable sources (not Reddit or other discussion forums) could also be used. --RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That is by a Forbes contributor not a staff member. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Variety has a review by its chief film critic that confirms the plot. --RL0919 (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Word count is <700 in current version. Editors can modify after being added. This plot summary sourced to movie itself. The film is released on 25 April in countries including Aus, NZ, Singapore, Phillipines, Korea, HK, and so on. So Wikipedians should not object to include the plot for V reason. I think it is ok to add the plot on 25 April afternoon in East Asia time zones (around GMT 03:00-06:00). There is no valid reason to wait until 27 April.

 Not done Not yet released in origin country. Not hard to wait, see WP:NORUSH. -- Alex^TW 07:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What does the "origin country" have to do with whether the plot is verifiable? --RL0919 (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s a made up rule for which there is no consensus. The film has been released. The plot can be added. Stephen 10:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• absolutely no consensus here to prevent the plot from being stated. The film is out in theatres. Plot is out. Articles are written. starship.paint ~ KO 10:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Jon Favreau not in Infinity War

Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan is not in Infinity War.

References

Michael Douglas in Infinity War

Hank Pym from Ant-Man had appeared in Avengers: Infinity War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.81.97 (talk)

• Source please. I watched the film, didn't notice him? When did he appear? Secretary of State scene? starship.paint ~ KO 12:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Delete all spoilers of the plot, the movie isn't even out yet in all countries 2A01:CB00:40A:C000:25FC:8A19:45DF:16AD (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia does not suppress spoilers -- see Wikipedia:Spoilers for more explanation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Handling spoilers in revisions

Maybe revisions that spoil the movie (and the reversions calling attention to the fact that an entire plot summary is in what they're reverting) should be deleted--Harmony944 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No revisions have been (or should be) reverted because of spoilers. Spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Spoilers for more explanation. Some plot summary additions were reverted earlier because of concerns that the content was not verifiable prior to the movie's wide release, but that was not a concern about spoilers. Deleting those revisions is not supported by our policy on revision deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The policy specifically only applies post release. You have no excuses--Harmony944 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No such limitation is mentioned in any of the pages I linked to. --RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert request to "short plot" version

I request that the "Premise" section be reverted to the short version of the "Plot" section as it existed earlier this morning, which IMO is most consistent with relevant Wikipedia policy as previously discussed. After some editors expanded it out to near the previously rejected "long" plot (apparently copied from the Forbes contributor, who probably copied most of it from Reddit), someone else deleted it claiming "Movie isn't out yet"; but as previously discussed here it IS out in enough foreign markets to meet WP:V, even though it's not out yet in the U.S. I could do it myself, but I would prefer a consensus as to which "short" version should be posted; IMO the "long" version is not only too long, but also not sufficiently verifiable and a potential copyvio. --RBBrittain (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the plot must return, i ‘ve already seen the movie. Its out in the Netherlands on the 24th SRich (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Restored to short summary. I expect the plot summary will grow again, since over-inflation of plot summaries is a common problem for articles about popular movies. As for the people who keep going the other direction and removing the plot entirely, they really need to get over the idea that "not released in my country" is the same as "not yet released". --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The plot of the film is verifiable now so should remain. Too bad if you have to learn Dutch and fly out to the Netherlands, but I suggest editors acquaint themselves with WP:SOURCEACCESS. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for those who aren't aware, the film has now been released in Australia, Belgium, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, South Korea, Sweden, and Tunisia. In many time zones it is already the 26th, which will see it released in Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Kuwait, Oman, Poland, Qatar, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates. --RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

And in about 22 hours (5 PM EDT) previews should begin in the eastern U.S. I've already seen multiple spoiler vids on YouTube from Australia alone. --RBBrittain (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to have been copied from the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wikia, which presents an attribution problem, I think.  cjquines  03:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It also seems to be too detailed -- since when did the long plot template get removed? Per WP:PLOTSUM we should limit plot summaries to 700 words. I don't think Infinity War's plot is complex enough to warrant this much detail, considering we've written up a version that summarizes the plot without going over this limit. cjquines  (Talk) 03:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The long plot seems to be based from this edit on 19:30 April 25, which seems copied from this edit on the MCU wikia, which is earlier. If we're going to use the long version, it's potentially a derivative work from the wikia, which may be from Reddit, as noted above.  cjquines  (Talk) 03:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither of our versions seem to be lifted from marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com. I have run the copyvio detector on both versions and result of a copyvio is "unlikely": [8] and [9]. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Loki offers the Tesseract timeline

Thanos slaughters most of the Asgardians and defeats the Hulk. Loki offers the Tessaract to Thanos in exchange for Thor's life, but is killed when Thanos anticipates Loki's attempt to betray him.

• This order of events is wrong. Loki does appear to offer the Tesseract to save Thor, but this was actually a distraction for Hulk to attack. For those who actually watched the film, remember he said "We have the Hulk!" Thanos then beats Hulk and either he or his minions pick up the Tesseract that Loki dropped, eventually killing Loki. Loki never actually gave the Tesseract to Thanos. The above plot seems to suggest Thanos threatened Thor after Hulk's attack, but that was actually before Hulk's attack in the film. starship.paint ~ KO 23:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

change thanos to thaneos Lettucelouise (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanos appears to be the spelling that is supported by all sources, can you provide an alternative? — IVORK _Discuss 05:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor plot correction

The current plot summary states that Heimdall is killed by Corvus Glaive - this is inaccurate, as he is actually killed by Thanos, who stabs him using Corvus Glaive's weapon, which is the source of the confusion. 60.224.139.242 (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who is holding the weapon—it doesn't change the fact that Heimdall dies and fully explaining it in prose just pads that section out with excess detail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on spoiling the entire plot for the first few weeks and instead replace the plot of the movie with this synopsisRschwartz5 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As the Avengers and their allies have continued to protect the world from threats too large for any one hero to handle, a new danger has emerged from the cosmic shadows: Thanos. A despot of intergalactic infamy, his goal is to collect all six Infinity Stones, artifacts of unimaginable power, and use them to inflict his twisted will on all of reality. Everything the Avengers have fought for has led up to this moment - the fate of Earth and existence itself has never been more uncertain. </ref>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/

^I feel like releasing a full plot before the release of such a big film can lead to many upset fans which is why i'm suggesting this instead.

No. Holding back on the plot because of spoilers violates Wikipedia policies—such as WP:SPOILERS. Withholding the synopsis is a form of censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. Once a film, book, video game or other media is released, readers can reasonably expect that plot details will be included in articles. If, as a result of that, the film is spoiled for them, then that's their fault.

Also, copying a synopsis from another website is a copyright violation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

MarvelManiac29 (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)change Hames Rhodes to James Rhodes in the plot of the film.

 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. Waddie96 (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The power stone

Could we please stop fussing over the exact circumstances under which Thanos gets the Power Stone? It doesn't matter if he takes it from Loki, if Loki offers it, or if he wins it in Quill's dance battle for the fate of the universe. The most relevant details are that a) Thanos wants the stone, b) Thanos gets the stone, and c) Thor, Loki and Hulk are powerless to stop him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

This article needs to be edited as it contains spoilers for the movie as the plot is already written. Asbhamaan (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per WP:SPOILER. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Change of Plot in order to prevent spoilers.

Instead of publishing the plot right now can we please switch the plot to "Thanos.demands.silence." in order to prevent spoilers. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorythefireengine (talk • contribs)

@Rorythefireengine: No, we cannot. Wikipedia contains spoilers. If the plot information is verifiable, then it stays in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not go up until the film is commercially released to the general public, which does not happen until tomorrow, April 27. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The film has already been released to "the general public" if you are outside the United States. Why should "the general public" mean the American public? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably because the film is an American production, the box office takings are measured "domestically"—which is to say in America—and Hollywood has an America-centric view of the world. None of which are valid reasons for censoring the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no censoring. Look at the infobox: It hasn't opened yet. Entertainment Weekly made the passing comment "with a few earlier April 25 debuts in a handful of countries," but the article contains no evidence of citation that this actually happened or even naming one of the purported countries. Find a cite showing that it's been released commercially. Because right now, that March 1 EW article is just WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in New Zealand, and I can confirm that yes, the film did indeed open here on April 25. And you don't have to just take my word for it; see here and here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking "your word for it" is WP:OR. And the first link you supplied doesn't say the movie opened, only that it was scheduled to open April 25 in some counties — and that some in New Zealand did not want it to open then. That link is WP:CRYSTAL. I'll check the other now.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in Australia and this (particularly the last paragraph) is further evidence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Please give another editor a minute to vet this claim. And please do not continue to ignore WP:FILMPLOT.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That link verifies it was released in Australia. Full steam ahead. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, do a search for "Avengers Infinity War" and "New Zealand" and see for yourself what you find. It is just factually false to say the movie has not been released commercially here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, we do not need your approval. Your insistence that the film has not opened is highly disruptive, if not outright vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is up to each editor to verify any claims he or she adds to Wikipedia. If anyone is vandalizing, it's editors who refuse to back up their claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming the plot section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Got reverted. If an edit war kicks off then someone please report this at WP:RPP and/or WP:AN3. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the plot section to a cohetent recount, one that is not written in an in-universe style. For example, why is it so significant that Hulk lands in the Sanctum Santorum? How will an audience who is not familiar with the subject know what or where this is? WP:FILMPLOT says the following:

"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range."

The lengthy lists of characters eaaily push the word count over 700 words. Given that there are over thirty named characters in the film, we can apply the FILMPLOT exception. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not for one editor to unilaterally decide. At least two editors, myself and Emir of Wikipedia, disagree with you. You are edit-warring to go against consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's called editconsensus. A consensus can emerge through established editing practices, and that version of the plot had been accepted for 12 hours. Your "consensus" has existed for 12 minutes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus for breaking the rules of WP:FILMPLOT. No other editor here agrees with you. Indeed, one other editor tagged the plot as too long, and that was then, properly, addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That was not "properly addressed". For one, parts were written in an in-universe style. More concerningly, your grammar was terrible. You had one sentence with multiple phrases and clauses, three separate subjects and a hit-and-miss approach to verb-subject agreement.

Also, you cannot reasonably expect a consensus to form in 12 minutes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a consensus to follow the rules. A consensus is needed if you're arguing for an exception to the rules.

And please: I had one run-on sentence that you fixed and I left alone. I wouldn't talk about poor grammar when you use "revert back" and an abundance of passive-voice construction. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who positioned the Sanctum Santorum as being important to the plot when it is only in the film for five minutes. What is more important: that Banner finds Strange and Wong, or that he finds them in the Sanctum Santorum? How would the plot be any different if Banner found them at Stark Tower, the Statue of Liberty or Yankee Stadium? If it wouldn't be any different, specifying the sanctum is unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Banner lands somewhere more specific than just "New York City." Stating the location explains without lengthy exposition how Banner and Strange/Wong interacted. Suggesting that Banner landed in "New York City" and had to track down Strange is not good writing. Good writing is specific. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Simply stating the location is in-universe because it assumes the casual reader is familiar with the subject. Good writing might be specific, but good writing does not assume prior knowledge in lieu of exposition. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We say, "Hulk crash-lands at the Sanctum Sanctorum of Stephen Strange and his major domo Wong in New York City/" I'm not sure how that's expecting any prior knowledge comics by the reader. A "sanctum" is "a sacred place," so it's the sacred place of Strange and Wong. Would it be clearer to say, "...the Sanctum Sanctorum, home of...."? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, why do you insist on referring to Parker as "Peter Parker/Spider-Man" when every other characters with an assumed name—Stark, Rodgers, Romanoff, Barnes, T'Challa, Strange, Quill and probably half a dozen others I am forgetting—is only only ever referred to by their given name? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't insist; in fact, I've just left your most recent edit in that respect alone. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly restored it to the article. I've had to remove it two or three times now. So either you think there's a reason for keeping it or you're not paying attention to what you're doing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem unfamiliar with the concept that people can look at their own work, reexamine it in fuller context, and change their minds. That can happen when people work quickly and on the fly. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with it. You will, however, forgive me for being skeptical in this case given that you engaged in highly disruptive editing practices because you had not seen confirmation of the film's release. A simple Google search would have yielded the confirmation you sought, but you demanded other editors present sources to you. We do not need your permission to make changes because you don't own the article. Given your behaviour, I think it's quite clear that you weren't paying attention to what you were editing.

Also, did it not occur to you that the film is a major release and that it's failure to open as scheduled in over a dozen territories would be a major news event? When you did not see those articles, didn't you realise that the film had opened? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"A simple Google search would have yielded the confirmation". Then whatever editor was making the claim that the film had been released should have done that. We're all responsible for confirming our own claims. It's lazy and against the guidelines to insist other editors do your work for you.

"it's [sic] failure to open as scheduled in over a dozen territories would be a major news event". We don't deal in abstract hypotheticals. We deal in concrete facts. The guidelines are very clear: If you're making a claim, you, not other editors, are responsible for backing up that claim. And to suggest that editors wanting you to adhere to proper practice and guidelines is being "disruptive" is the height of gall.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You made the claim that the film had not been released to the general public. Where was your source to support that statement? Why are we obligated to provide sources, but you are not? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The plot cannot go in until the film is released commercially. Therefore, it is contingent on whoever first put in the plot to ensure that the film had opened. That is basic Wikipedia policy: You make an edit, you back up your claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Which you did not do. You claimed the film had not been released commercially but provided no evidence to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot rewrite

@Tenebrae: I said I was happy to discuss this further, so could we please have a more in depth discussion on my changes? I completely understand that it can suck when people work on something just to have it seemingly undone so quickly by someone else who was not involved, but that does not mean they should be allowed to keep their version. I think it would be easiest if you gave some more specifics on why you didn't like my changes, and then we could go from there. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a couple minutes. Overall, though, we generally don't make wholesale changes to versions arrived through multiple editors' consensus.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are side-by-side comparisons of the adamstom97 version followed by the extant versions:

• "A week after Thanos and his adoptive children ... retrieved the Infinity Stone of Power from the planet Xandar, they intercept a spaceship carrying the last survivors of Asgard."

or

• "Following the destruction of Asgard,(note) and having acquired the Power Stone from the planet Xandar, Thanos and his adoptive children ... intercept the ship with the surviving Asgardians to extract the Space Stone from the Tesseract."

I would say the statement that it's been a week (which I don't recall from the film, which I've seen twice) really isn't important. Would it make a different if it had been two weeks, or six days? I also think we need to give the reason why Thanos has intercepted the ship.

• "Before he dies, Heimdall uses the Bifröst ..."

or

• Heimdall uses the Bifröst..., then is killed by Glaive."

It's more plot-specific to say Heimdall was killed for his specific action than just died from a wound or any number of reasons. (I'm not wild for the passive voice in this sentence, but because the sentence also involves a third character, Hulk, the active voice would be a hard construction to use here.)

• "Thanos takes the Space Stone from Loki before killing him, and obliterates the ship."

or

• "Killing Loki and taking the Space Stone, Thanos departs with his children and obliterates the ship."

The first version is shorter and might be better. It does leave the lingering thought, to me, of "Why did he obliterate the ship with himself in it?"

• "Hulk crash-lands in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the sorcerer Stephen Strange in New York City, and reverts to his human form of Bruce Banner."

or

• "Hulk crash-lands at the Sanctum Sanctorum of Stephen Strange and his major domo Wong in New York City, and reverts to Bruce Banner. After hearing of Thanos' intention to kill half the universe's population...."

Specifying that Strange is a sorcerer is probably a good idea. I'm not sure why we would jettison Wong when he plays a significant, multi-scene part (unlike Parker's friend Ned). I also think by saying that the Hulk reverts to a named person, we've no reason to think that person isn't human, making "his human form" redundant. I also think it's important to state Thanos' goal, and how the heroes learn of it.

• "Maw captures Strange. Stark and Parker pursue Maw's spaceship while Banner contacts the Avengers."

or

• "Maw captures Strange; Stark and Parker pursue Maw's spaceship while Wong remains to protect the sanctum. Banner contacts the other Avengers."

I agree with adamstom97; Wong protecting the Sanctum has no bearing on the rest of the movie's plot.

• "In Scotland, Midnight and Glaive ambush Vision, whose consciousness comes from the Mind Stone, and Wanda Maximoff. They are rescued by Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Sam Wilson, all former members of the Avengers. The group seeks shelter with James Rhodes at the Avengers' headquarters, where Vision proposes Maximoff destroy the Mind Stone."

or

• "In Scotland, Midnight and Glaive ambush Wanda Maximoff and Vision. They are rescued by Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Sam Wilson, and seek shelter with James Rhodes at Avengers headquarters. Vision offers to sacrifice himself by proposing Maximoff destroy the Mind Stone in his forehead to keep Thanos from retrieving it. Rogers suggests they travel to Wakanda, which may have the resources to remove the Stone without destroying Vision."

Aside from my feeling this should remain a standalone paragraph, I think there are points in the adamstom97 version that belong. May I propose this melding:

• "In Scotland, Midnight and Glaive ambush Wanda Maximoff and Vision, who is integrally connected to the Mind Stone in his forehead. Former Avengers Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, and Sam Wilson rescue their comrades then take shelter with James Rhodes at Avengers headquarters. Vision offers to sacrifice himself by proposing Maximoff destroy the stone. Rogers suggests they travel to Wakanda, which may have the resources to remove it without destroying Vision."

• "Gamora takes him to the planet Vormir where Red Skull serves as the keeper of the Soul Stone. Red Skull informs Thanos that he must sacrifice someone he loves, and Thanos is granted the Soul Stone after reluctantly throwing Gamora to her death."

or

• Thanos takes Gamora to Vormir, a planet where Red Skull, keeper of the Soul Stone, informs him the stone can only be retrieved by sacrificing someone he loves. Thanos reluctantly throws Gamora to her death, granting him the Soul Stone."

I think adamstom97 is correct that Gamora takes Thanos (or perhaps "Gamora accompanies Thanos") rather than "Thanos takes Gamora." However, I think we need to state Vormir is a planet and not a city or something else. "serves as the keeper of the Soul Stone" is eight words while "keeper of the Soul Stone" says the same thing in five words. I also think the second version is more succinct since it doesn't say "Red Skull" twice. Also, "is granted" is passive voice, while "granting him" is active voice.

The remainder has the same issue of succinctness versus a wordier description. I don't think we need to quote dialog from the movie. And there are other issues: Saying "Before Thor can kill him with Stormbreaker" doesn't specify that Thor seriously wounded him with Stormbreaker, thus demonstrating Stormbreaker may indeed have the power to kill Thanos, an important point. And I'm not sure why we'd remove the post-credits scene, which we include for all other MCU movies.

What do our fellow editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the above assessment. I don't think we have to worry about being succinct *that* much, as the film is well over two hours in length, and the length of the plot summary seems acceptable to me. The issue is whether the wordier description provides relevant information that a shorter version does not.  cjquines  (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As my response to those thoughts, I first want to point out that my version is more succinct/less wordy, which was part of my intention from the start (I got the word count down quite a bit from the version I first started working on). I want to reiterate that I am sympathetic with those who have worked hard on this summary before I got here, but multiple people working on something does not mean it cannot be improved further and I believe all of my changes are improvements:

• I know that in other MCU articles we mention its relation to other films with notes to further explain/support that, but it is not suitable here. The film begins with all of the heroes in different places based on how their previous films ended and it just doesn't make sense to try and recap all of those here. It makes even less sense to single out just one, Ragnarok, particularly when the destruction of Asgard has little bearing on the plot of this film. Does Thanos begin his quest because of the events of Ragnarok? The film does not indicate that. So the whole opening of the plot needed to be changed, and what is relevant to the plot of this film is that Thanos has already retrieved the Power Stone. We don't need to say that it was a week ago (which is supported in the film btw) but we should still begin by saying "After Thanos and his adoptive children..." It is also redundant to introduce that they are there to get the Space Stone when we are just going to describe them doing it within a couple of lines.
• Heimdall was already dying, which is covered by us saying that everyone was being killed, so signalling him as an exception from the previous sentence just to turn around and say he is killed when he was already dying to begin with is just unnecessarily wordy.
• I felt it was an obvious improvement to note that Loki is killed after the Space Stone is taken (it makes more sense and is what actually happened), and I feel like it is reasonably natural to just say that they obliterate the ship without the reader believing that they committed suicide. But perhaps that is just me.
• The only mention of Wong in the plot summary is that he is at the Sanctum, and that he stays there. It has no impact on the plot, and we shouldn't be shoe-horning characters into the summary just so they can get a mention. As for Bruce Banner being the "human form", I don't think it is true to say "we've no reason to think that person isn't human" when the movie is full of aliens and we just described something quite un-humanlike. I wouldn't be against re-adding something about Thanos's goals, but I just wanted to avoid it too much there since in other places we are assuming that characters already know what is going on.
• My problem with your compromise is the mention of Wakanda; it is redundant to say they want to go to Wakanda and then the next thing about them is that they are arriving at Wakanda. We should only be saying the latter.
• I think I would be happy with the current version if the first part was changed to "Gamora takes him". The rest of the changes were just trying to be less wordy, but there isn't much wiggle-room here.
• The direct quote I used was important, I feel, because it is important to note that Strange did what he did because it is part of the one future he saw where they win, but that is not explicit in the film so we can't really infer that ourselves here. Using the quote avoids OR while still converying that important point.
• I know seeing a massive axe in someone's chest appears to be a major wound, but the film never really indicates that this is the case. There are no repercussions for this in the film at any point since the appearances of Thanos after that moment do not show him in any serious pain or anything. What is important in that scene is that Thor is unable to kill him, so that is what needs to be mentioned.
• As has been discussed in several places (you may not have been aware of this though, so I'll try to give a full explanation) we do not just include stuff from post-credit scenes for the sake of it. From memory, the last discussion I had on this led to a consensus in that we first treat the scene as if it was just part of the film (is it important to the plot or just a joke?) and then if it is decided to add it to the plot summary, we only label it as being a post-credit scene if that fact is notable (i.e. if the scene actually has nothing to do with the rest of the plot and has been clearly added on as an extra scene). In this case, the post-credit scene is noteworthy (it isn't just a joke or something) but it doesn't not have to be labelled as a post-credits scene as it quite naturally fits into the rest of the plot where I mentioned it in my version. The fact that it is after the credits and what that means can be discussed in the production section, but as far as this summary is concerned it fits quite nicely with the mention of other character disintegrations. This is another case of avoiding redundancy—why mention that characters are disintegrating, then move on to other stuff, and then come back and say "back when people were disintegrating, these other people did as well, and..."

I hope those all gave you a better idea of where I was coming from. I wasn't just randomly changing things because I wanted to write my own version of the plot summary, all of my changes have justification and they add up to a more succinct and accurate summary. And I do not intend for this to be the final version either, as I'm sure it will change quite a bit over the coming weeks. But for now, I do believe my version is better and should be reimplemented so that work can carry on from that stronger foundation. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think adamstom97 is correct that Gamora takes Thanos (or perhaps "Gamora accompanies Thanos") rather than "Thanos takes Gamora."

The film makes it pretty clear that Gamora does not go willingly. To say she takes Thanos implies she is allied with him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

She is guiding him there since she knows where to go and he does not, so "Gamora takes Thanos" is correct even if she was reluctant in doing so. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

197.226.207.92 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are spoilers at the end of the plot about the post credit scene.

 Not done as per WP:SPOILER.  cjquines  (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

There are a hell lot of stupid grammatical mistakes in the current plot description. Don't know how that ended up on wikipedia. I can't edit the exact plot content, so just want to suggest to the author/publisher to at-least sanitize what is presented here. 202.140.38.22 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was the spoiler for the post-credit scene removed...

...in this diff? The comment from User:Adamstom.97 says: "Also removing badly/incorrectly formatted references." I was under the impression that if the references were formatted incorrectly, one corrected the formatting, instead of taking the lazy option of simply removing them. I added the references using the template reference tool provied by Wikipedia editing tool. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 10:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)