Talk:Avengers: Endgame/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

King, Queen, Ruler?

Since there has been a lot of back and forths over whether Valkyrie is the new king or queen of Asgard (despite the film explicitly titling her "King"), I believe it's best for us to use the gender-neutral term of "ruler" going forward. This word has the exact same connotations of king, or queen, or queen regnant or whatever other titles could be put in its place and should be more than sufficient the appease everybody. I've made the change now and will link to this discussion in the edit summary if further discussion is required. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on this has been achieved per this discussion. What other points need making? KyleJoan^talk 21:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No consensus was established in that discussion. People expressed various views on the issue, and there was no wide agreement. —Lowellian (reply) 19:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

i'm for king. also, i don't like how you started this discussion and made the change at the same time. kinda eliminates the whole point of talk page "consensus". --SacredDragonX (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I've restored "king" as no "discussion" had been had before the change. As a consensus was reached in the prior discussion, a consensus should be reached for a change. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion linked to above doesn't actually reach a consensus about anything; mention is made of the fact that Hela declares herself queen (which favours not calling Valkyrie king) and four links were provided to entertainment news websites – that's not a consensus, that's the beginnning of a disucssion. Regardless, even if a consensus had been made, the fact that edits continue to be made to the article changing this one single word makes clear that the "consensus" isn't working and that a different word is probably preferable. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

As of now, it looks as if more editors are in favor of going with the term that is specifically uttered in the film, which is a consensus. If other editors would like to offer a different opinion as part of this discussion, they are free to do so. In the meantime, why mess with what was previously established? KyleJoan^talk 06:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

How can you know that more editors are in favor of some particular position when nothing like a poll was ever taken and views were expressed on both sides of the issue? Moreover, even if one side of the issue had a slight advantage in numbers, that is not consensus. Consensus is decisive, wide agreement, not a near 50-50 split. —Lowellian (reply) 19:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There exists a historical precedent where Queen Christina of Sweden (1626-1689) was known/named/titled as a "Female King". As heir to the throne in 17th century Sweden, the fact that her father raised her as a male might have had something to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Giving Valkyrie the title king in the plot summary is unwarranted WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation, and a neutral term like "ruler" or "leader" should be used instead. The dialogue in the film is ambiguous: "So, when can we expect you back?" "Um, about that..." "Thor, the people need a king." "No, they already have one." "That's funny. You're being serious?" "It's time for me to be who I am rather than who I'm supposed to be. But you, you're a leader. That's who you are." There's no actual confirmation in that dialogue that Valkyrie would have the title "king". Furthermore, calling her king contradicts Frigga and Hela using the title "queen" of Asgard (and note that Hela was not just a consort, but a reigning ruler like Valkyrie) in the preceding MCU Thor films. —Lowellian (reply) 19:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, if I'm speaking based on the number of editors on each side of the matter of invoking the term king, as of now, it looks like there are more editors in favor of it. If a vote is necessary, then let's facilitate that. Regarding WP:CRYSTALBALL, if we're going to be literal about it, then leaving Asgard to Valkyrie shouldn't be indicated at all because the dialogue only alludes to Valkyrie becoming king/ruler/leader in the future with no official coronation or inauguration (yet). This is why I believe king is the most accurate because–as exhibited by the ambiguity in the dialogue that was mentioned–Thor regards Valkyrie as a leader, but insinuates that Asgard has a king in her. Moreover, I'd like to invite contributors to the previous discussion to this one because apparently, it's still going on.

@Hijiri88: @GrendelNightmares: @Trillfendi: @Argento Surfer: Pardon me for pinging, but do join in. KyleJoan^talk 21:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, but I would go with a more generic/neutral term like makes her leader to avoid the King/Queen debate. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The writing of the scene spurred the discussion "They already have one [A king]". I don't think Asgard has any special rules about king being a gender neutral term. Making it "king" is only going to cause debate. Calling it ruler will end the discussion. MasonBanks (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole conversation is extremely arbitrary. Simply using "ruler" finishes it off. Sock (tock talk) 15:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• My opinion on this is that it doesn't belong in the plot summary at all, but in a sourced analysis section.

At present, the first time Valkyrie is mentioned in this article is in Following Stark's funeral, Thor appoints Valkyrie as the king of New Asgard, and the only other place is Tessa Thompson [reprises her role] as Valkyrie [from an unnamed previous film]. We just throw her in there with no explanation of who she is, a problem made worse by the fact that her "name" is an English word that means something quite different in the real world, and it's a nane she's never been referred to by onscreen in any of these films. This is not only abysmal writing for an article that I have little doubt will be auto-nominated and auto-passed at GAN like so many of its brothers, but it violates the rule that primary-sourced plot summaries need to be barebones enough to justify their not having to cite reliable secondary sources. (As an aside, I would like to thank Lowellian for retrieving the exact quote to verify what I've been saying for weeks.)

I should also reiterate that these films are highly inconsistent when it comes to royal succession and titles; see for example how Civil War implies, and at least one official translation explicitly states, that T'Challa was a crown prince who automatically inherited the kingship upon the death of the previous king, like many real-world monarchies, but then they decided when making a film that wasn't released until two years later that that was not the case. Asgardian succession and titles are messier still as there is more content to contradict itself. This is important if we are going to implicitly require our readers to read the Thor: Ragnarok article to understand this one.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

On-screen reference is too high of a bar. There are plenty of primary and third party sources that can be used to identify her. I do agree that rewriting it to avoid naming her at all would be simpler - "Thor passes on the leadership of New Asgard to go into space and be part of a love triangle between Star-Lord and Gamora." (or whatever). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

On-screen reference can never be too high of a bar for content included in an uncited, implicitly-sourced-to-the-work-itself plot outline. Making Valkyrie the leader is only worth noting if we can assume the reader already knows who she is, what New Asgard is, and what connection Thor has to all of it (in real-world Norse mythology Thor and his father die in the same battle; Thor as king of the "Asgardians" -- Aesir? -- is an invention of either these films or the relatively obscure comic books on which they are based). At present only the second assumption is one we are allowed to make. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really following this discussion as I think it is silly (just say "ruler" and be done with it), but I would like to point out that she is explicitly named "Valkyrie" onscreen in this film by Hulk. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me if I got a detail about this film's dialogue wrong. I have only seen it in English twice (both in the first four days of release; I saw it in Max-4DX on Sunday, but few if any Japanese theatres will show a subtitled movie in that format; I imagine the Japanese dub didn't shoehorn in a name where no Japanese speaker in real life would, and it was probably just "やあ、お姉さん" or the like), which is definitely not enough to have all the dialogue memorized. If he does call her by that "name", that's another implicit contradiction between this film and Ragnarok, where she was a much more prominent character and "the Valkyrior" was a presumed-extinct order of female warriors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Not that this is particularly relevant to the topic of the conversation, but the character's name is Valkyrie; it always has been, both in this movie, Thor: Ragnarok, and the comics. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You may indeed be right. I don't recall anything in either this film or Ragnarok that implied anything of the sort, though, and I do remember a lot in Ragnarok that appeared to contradict it; and my understanding is that she is essentially an original character with some features in common with the comic book character called Valkyrie. But Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources for anything that isn't immediately, indisputably, apparent from a surface viewing of the film, so it's a moot point anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week since the start of this discussion, and this is a summary of those who have expressed a clear preference in the previous discussion:

• Supporting "king" (2): User:KyleJoan, User:SacredDragonX
• Supporting gender-neutral term like "ruler" or "leader" (7): User:GrendelNightmares, User:Jasca Ducato, User:Lowellian, User:Argento Surfer, User:MasonBanks, User:Sock, User:Adamstom.97

That is pretty decisively in favor of a gender-neutral term. Given these results, I'm changing the term in the article from "king" to "ruler". —Lowellian (reply) 19:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lowellian: Much appreciated, friend.

 GrendelNightmares  (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, very few of the above-counted !votes explicitly opposed my proposal that the statement be removed from the unsourced plot summary altogether, and moved to an as-yet-hypothetical "Analysis" section. There's a lot of Yeah, this whole conversation is extremely arbitrary. and I have no strong opinion being interpreted as supporting one over the other, which is fine, but they definitely can't be taken as explicit opposition to my preferred solution that came after most of them, and at least one comment that was mostly just a "gotcha" aimed at me that only incidentally stated just say "ruler" and be done with it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be in favor of rewording the sentence to avoid specifying who is replacing him. I think the important point is that he chose not to remain king. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I wouldn't mind that, but it wouldn't make much sense without having already explained that Thor is the current king. The Honest Trailer for Infinity War might have made a big satyric deal about how it wasn't a complete film but rather a "Part 1", but we can't assume readers of this encyclopedia article have read our equivalent article on Infinity War. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead to this article says it's a sequel to the first three Avengers films, the 22nd installment in the MCU, and the plot is about undoing the events of the third film. The second paragraph says it was announced as Infinity War - Part II before the name was changed. The cast section describes Thor as "the king of New Asgard". At some point, we have to assume reader competency. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, removing the character's name since they originally appeared in another movie (my understanding of the issue) would set a precedent for removing other character names, such as Doctor Strange, Peter Quill, or even Loki. In fact, it would set a precedent for removing all characters names. Simply put, I see this as a non-issue; there's no reason whatsoever for us to remove the name from the sentence. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe Hijiri's concern was that she's not mentioned anywhere else in the plot summary, and her inclusion in this sentence is both inconsequential and lacking context. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Argento’s right. What Jasca said doesn’t bear any apparent relationship to what I said: could people please read comments before replying to them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Care to fix MCU-related prose at Avengers (comics)?

Look at this section of the current version of the page - it's just all over the place and hard to read. I'm thinking, if the folks who watch this page could bring some collaborative energy to that one, it could be brought to a decent shape fairly quickly. Airbornemihir (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverting "the 22nd film" change

I've noticed for a while now that it was decided in this archived discussion to change "the twenty-second film" to "the 22nd film" for the page, however, the only argument in favor of this change as presented in the discussion was that it was confusing for one individual as they misinterpreted it as a twenty-second long film; saying "Now, it is past midnight here, and English is my 3rd language, but am I an idiot for initially interpreting that as there is a film that's somehow 20 seconds long? I mean, there are short films, and then there's the 5-Second Films project, so a (very) short official "film" on its own doesn't seem that crazy... I suppose writing it as "22nd" would be unambiguous, but I understand that's not proper style." I see this only as a misinterpretation not directly associated with the wording of the text as their really shouldn't have been any indication of what they interpreted it as saying, sincve the text is only referring to it being "the twenty-second film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)", not mentioning a single thing regarding length, rendering the reasoning as insufficient to myself.

Also, for all of the MCU film pages, they use the text formula, i.e. for Spider-Man: Far From Home, it says "and the twenty-third film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)", using the same formula as what was previously used on Endgame's page. This text should not have a problem being interpreted incorrectly unless one is taking it out of context. So, I think it should be in the best interest to revert it back to saying "and the twenty-second film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)" as there is no problem of misinterpretation for it unless taken out of context. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree on this – every other movie in the series has the number spelt out fully. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The Loose Ends?

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

---

There still appear to be some unanswered questions in the movie which hopefully will be answered in future films such as:-

* In the very first scene where Hawkeye is teaching archery to his daughter, why is there what appears to be an electronic tag attached to his right ankle?

* Where did Valkyrie keep her winged horse from the time of Hela's banishment till settling on Earth?;

* Who was the head of state of Wakanda during the 5 years that King T'Challa was 'missing'?;

* After the final battle, why does 'past' Gamora disappear and not 'rejoin' the Guardians of the Galaxy?  Did she also turn to dust?;

* In the second-to-last scene which shows an aged Captain America, why didn't they repeat what happened to Scott Lang (Ant-Man) and 'push time' through Steve Rogers in order to 'rejuvenate' him?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC) 

Hi! These are interesting questions and I would very much like these answered in a screenwriter interview or even better in one or more future films. However, any answers that we were to come up with, here on this talk page, would be speculative and not sourced from the actual film. So we wouldn't be able to include them in the article text, as I guess you're implicitly suggesting, without bumping into the reliable sources policy. Further, some editors would consider discussing these questions on an article talk page as forum-style posting, since such discussion would not actually be related to concrete changes we could make to the article. So it might be best for this discussion to come to a natural end here. Airbornemihir (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Although this comment is clearly not in the interests of improving the article, however, I'd still like to give my best comments on these questions even though these comments will be taken away due to out-of-context related discussion.

Firstly, Hawkeye was wearing the electronic tag attached to his ankle due to the events of Captain America: Civil War, which resulted in Ant-Man and Hawkeye serving time on house arrest. Thus, so they do not leave their premises, the electronic tag would alert authorities if they breached the perimeter, as seen in Ant-Man and the Wasp. Secondly, this question is worthy of discussion, however since the events surrounding your question was relatively unseen, moreover, since it is not a direct plot point that affects the narrative of any movie in the series, I'd doubt there would be a clear answer to this question. Thirdly, this question, I believe is not too concerning since characters such as Okoye, M'Baku (and possibly T'Challa's mother) still lived during these 5 years, I think they would be able to keep Wakanda going in this circumstance. Fourthly, this question is very self-explanatory given you have watched the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie. Since Gamora travelled from 2014 to 2023 with Sanctuary II, Gamora had not yet known the Guardians of the Galaxy at that point back in 2014, since the events in 2014 took place just before the events of the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie. Moreover, Gamora did not (or at least shouldn't have) turned to dust at the end of Endgame since Quill was still actively searching at the end of Endgame, but simply just disappeared from the battle. Fifthly, the whole Steve Rogers going back in time is so that he could fulfil his promise to Peggy Carter at having that last dance just before he flew himself into the ice. Although he made it back to the present, the scene is not meant to say that Captain America came back to the present ready for more action, it is that he enjoyed life with Peggy Carter and that he returned to pass the mantle of Captain America to Falcon now. By all means, they could have rejuvenated him, but that is currently not what they wished, in other words, Captain America's story arc has finished. And still, if they rejuvenated him, it wouldn't have had the same emotional ending as what the filmmakers would have strived for. Anyway, thanks for the interesting questions. RemixCMDR (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Long-term addressing of the cast structure

This film's pre-release marketing, including the poster billing, was all carefully designed to keep from spoiling the film. Larson, Gurira, and Wong were basically cameos in the film, which was mostly about the gen-one Avengers having one last big adventure before most of them die or retire, and this fact is already reflected in most of the post-release secondary sources (excluding the "spoiler-free" ones, which for this purpose are just as unreliable as primary marketing materials).

It seems really un-wiki-like to be structuring the cast section to match the deliberately misleading pre-release marketing given this context.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I second this. The billing on the poster is not indicative of overall screen presence. B91302 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be restructured. 12.16.29.18 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is "un-wiki-like", as there is a very specific wiki reason for doing it. However, that reason can be overridden with talk page consensus and I agree that there is room for improvement here. While I would argue for keeping Danvers since she is still prominently used in the film even if her screen time is not great, I agree that Gurira and Wong only have cameo appearances in the film and could be moved out of the main cast list if others agree. I think it is important that we get actual consensus before doing this, as we don't want to set a precedent for just ignoring this guideline willy-nilly (that would just be asking for trouble). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to keeping Larson in the bullet points too, but we need to base it on reliable secondary sources, which I imagine probably give just as much emphasis to Pratt and Holland (whose presence in the film was deliberately underplayed in the marketing, even though it doesn't appear to have technically been a "secret" since the sources we cite predate the film's release by years). Honestly, my top priority is still trimming the character bios and fixing them to match the characters' actual roles in this film; if we could agree that the character descriptions need work, and perhaps agree that not all bulleted cast members need their own character descriptions. Wong and Favreau, and to a slightly lesser extent Gurira, really shouldn't get their own bullet points though.

On a related note, how about we give a separate paragraph for the Tony funeral cameos (of which technically Favreau is also one)? I don't have a source at the moment, but typing "who were all the ch" into my Chrome URL bar led to the suggestion who were all the characters at tony stark funeral, so I imagine reliable sources should not be hard to come by. Currently Michelle Pfeiffer's two-second non-speaking cameo is given as Marquand, Pratt, Mackie, Hiddleston or Holland, even though it's hardly more prominent than the Howard the Duck cameo. (Please note that I'm not saying we should include Howard, a CGI character with no on-screen or even on-set actor, and no dialogue, in the article. It's just here for comparison purposes.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Larson should be moved to cameo but other than that the cast section is fine the way it is. Most of these people never even spoke (especially Samuel L. Jackson). Trillfendi (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: You seem to contradict yourself on this point -- most of these people never even spoke, but it's fine the way it is, giving equal weight to those who don't speak as those who speak more than those who are on the bill but died in Infinity War and so their names were deliberately left off the poster? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you realize I was referring to the people in the cameo subsection... not main characters. Trillfendi (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but a lot of the people in the cameo subsection are actually more prominent in terms of screen time, dialogue, "noteworthiness", and probably also salary, than several of the "main characters" on the poster billing. You say "especially Jackson", but actually there's a spectrum: Jackson is a very famous and powerful actor, who was probably paid more for his two-second cameo than several of the minor speaking roles, unless he appeared in the film gratis as a personal favour, and while we'll likely never know details like that, he is about twice as prominent on-screen as Pfeiffer and Douglas, while several of the other "cameos" were actually speaking roles that were apparently only left off the poster because the characters died in the previous film (in that several actors whose roles in the film were even less prominent actors were named on the poster because their characters were not confirmed dead in the previous film). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Billing is not something that is intended to mislead but are carefully negotiated between actors and studios. That said, Wikipedia is not beholden to these negotiations but it is the most neutral way of structuring these lists to avoid discussions like this one that are based solely on POV.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm sure any actor would love to have their name on the poster for one of the highest-grossing films in history despite their actual role in the film being barely a cameo (Gurira, Wong, Favreau, and to a lesser extent Larson), while the studio definitely was misleading in the pre-release marketing for a very clear and understandable reading. I'm not criticizing either Disney/Marvel or any of the actors for any of this; I'm just saying we should be basing this content on reliable secondary sources rather than pre-release marketing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Also, please retract the above based solely on POV personal attack. You and Adam suddenly showing up here almost two weeks after this section was opened frankly looks a lot like you deliberately ignored the discussion so the section would be archived and then you could just revert any attempt to implement it, but I refrained from pointing that out until you made that remark, and I'd be happy to continue doing so if you make even the slightest effort to return the favour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't tell someone to remove a "personal attack" and then attack them back. I didn't know this section was here because every time I come to Wikipedia there has been literally hundreds of edits to this page and talk page, so I have not been able to keep up with it all and in general have been ignoring it. I'm sure Triiiple's been in a similar boat. I only saw this because I saw you make the change in the article, and now I am here to discuss. I agree with the three actors that you moved out of the cast list, I don't think anyone else should be moved, and at this point I would be happy if the discussion ended now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This was not intended to be personal against anyone in this discussion but based solely on history. These articles were at one time rife with edit wars with editors fighting over who they felt should be listed where. My apologies.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, with most of the other films in this franchise (the "history" you refer to) there was not such a large gulf between (a) reliable secondary sources written by people who had seen the film and (b) a combination of primary marketing materials that were deliberately keeping the details of the film secret and "secondary" sources that were completely reliant on said primary marketing materials. Captain America: The First Avenger's poster billing, for example, was a fairly good representation of the actual main cast of the film, and so after the film came out we didn't get an abundance of reliable secondary sources writing in a manner that was very inconsistent with the poster billing, and so if anyone was arguing that their favourite actor (Jackson, Choi, Armitage or Haddock) having a cameo in the film justified their getting a bullet point without a reliable secondary source it could be reasonably assumed to be based on personal opinion: this is definitely not the case here (at least it's not my personal opinion, but the opinions of the majority of professional critics who have seen the film). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else mistake this section heading, for a discussion on how Endgame is an allegorical criticism of the Caste system? No? Just me then. Carry on. Bogger (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bogger: I can see the train of thought leading to the mistake, but did the film address this topic? Airbornemihir (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Two issues

Not everything needs a talk page discussion, but there are two aspects of the page which puzzle me: the decision to leave Morgan Stark out of the brief discussion of Tony Stark's motivations in the plot section, and the decision to refer to Rocket Raccoon and Nebula as former Guardians of the Galaxy. The text currently reads, "[...] the three ask Stark to help them retrieve the Stones from the past to reverse Thanos' actions in the present, but Stark refuses to help. After looking at a picture of Peter Parker and talking with his wife, Pepper Potts, Stark relents and works with Banner [...]" It's pretty weird to decide that a photograph of a long-dead character merits inclusion, but not the living daughter of two important characters in the film. There's also nothing to indicate that the Guardians of the Galaxy have become defunct although Yondu, Gamora, Star-lord, Mantis, Drax and Groot are gone. I'll be editing to fix both these things. Airbornemihir (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Unlikely to beat Avatar

Can this be considered a hard estimate worth adding? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone update the chart for: "Chart of the North American box office gross of Avengers: Endgame", in the Reception section to bring it up to date. CodexJustin (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2019

If there is a plot section, write at the above "Caution: Spoilers ahead" JNDSFHJFO (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Runtime for Re-Release confirmed

https://cinemark.com/avengers-endgame-with-bonus-content Someone PLEASE add this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.116.8 (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Question concerning the plot and an apparently unresolved part of it

Because the plot includes a mention of the theft of the pym particles in the third paragraph but no apparent reason for the need to go back and steal them I had added a point of clarification ([1], later slightly amended [2]) that the reason for the theft was that they only had enough pym particles for one round trip, therefore the avengers needed to gather the infinity stones and return which in stark and roger's case didn't happen. This got pulled out, and I've been on the fence for sometime about bringing it up, but decided it would be best to do so since it without the note there really doesn't seem to be a reason for the decision to steal the pym particles in 1970. I'm just curious if there is a good reason for it not being in the article or if it was simply collateral damage, such as it were. If someone could clarify, I'd appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Please change: Avengers: Endgame will be released on digital download by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment on July 30, 2019, and on Ultra HD Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and DVD on August 13.

To: Avengers: Endgame will be released in the US on digital download by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment on July 30, 2019, and on Ultra HD Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and DVD on August 13. The film will later be released for the UK on September 2, 2019 in both Blu-ray and Digital HD.

Thank you. BrianGriffinTheDog (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Already done. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Can you add re-release date for endgame in the infobox? 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:20D8:F4DD:C89D:31AD (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Question: is is standard practice to put re-release date in the infobox? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the 3D re-release of Jurassic Park, which does not include the re-release date in the infobox. NiciVampireHeart 22:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Pending response to my query above. Please re-open this request by changing "|answered=yes" to "|answered=no" and providing any necessary details. NiciVampireHeart 14:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Also noting for the record, that neither Jurassic Park nor Titanic have their re-release dates in the infobox. NiciVampireHeart 14:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Add Wong, Favreau, and Paltrow back to the cast list

You have to do what it says on the poster. Matt Campbell (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

They're on the poster, which is why I added them back. However, I know that at some point someone's gonna undo that edit, I want to keep that from happening. --DJordan18 tc 3:49, 11 July 2019, (UTC)

"Alcoholic"

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

---

I've restored "drinking heavily" since alcoholism, which the movie never states of Thor, is a disease that we should not be POV-diagnosing. The movie never says it, so we cannot. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's just untrue to claim that because a movie never uses a particular word that an article describing its plot can never use that word. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s not untrue at all. We don’t see him stumbling around doing nothing but guzzling booze. To say he’s an alcoholic is inference on your part. The way it is written is fine. Rusted AutoParts 23:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's untrue because no policy or guideline states that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No original research springs to mind. Rusted AutoParts 23:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The point of the policy is that you can't make something up. It doesn't say that because the plot of a movie doesn't use a particular word, that Wikipedia cannot use that word. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

But you are making something up. You’re saying he’s an alcoholic. He wasn’t stated as being so in the film. There’s specific language needing to be adhered to. One can drink alcohol and not be an alcoholic. One can take pills and not be a pill addict. Rusted AutoParts 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Diagnosis of alcoholism requires specialized knowledge. Unless the film specifically states that Thor is an alcoholic is similar to saying Hulk suffers from dissociative disorder or Thanos is cyanotic. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Further, isn't Thor an extraterrestrial (i.e. not human)? I can't begin to imagine how anyone would apply DSM criteria to a non-human. Pretty much every cat would be autistic while dogs would have borderline personality disorder.

Saying he drinks heavily is descriptive and consistent with NPOV. "Alcoholism" is original research. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

We aren't talking about actual "diagnosis of alcoholism". We are talking about how to best describe the fictional events shown in a film, for which "specialized knowledge" clearly isn't required. The description of Thor as an alcoholic makes perfect sense as a description of his behavior, and it is not original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As Rusted AutoParts and SummerPhD^v2.0 rightly point out: Aside from anything else, we cannot make a POV inference of something that the movie not only does not state but is clearly a contentious inference. One person says Thor is an alcoholic. Three people interpret the same scenes differently. And fortunately, Wikipedia solves this kind of disagreement by saying that all we can do is state what the movie itself concretely shows.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It is 100% irrelevant that the movie does not actually use the term "alcoholism". Obviously a movie doesn't comment on itself. It is up to editors to decide how best to describe things. The movie obviously depicts Thor as an alcoholic, and avoiding the term is euphemism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No it's not. Thor is not called an alcoholic, and even if he was, "drinking heavily" still serves as a better way to phrase it. Rusted AutoParts 02:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing gained by adding "alcoholism". I remain steadfast that I am neither qualified to diagnose alcoholism nor comfortable throwing the term around lightly. That you feel an alien in a movie presents the criteria clearly enough for someone with the credentials to write that diagnosis is immaterial. You're going to need an RfC on this one if you still insist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Highest grossing

I'm a little confused about this "title" of highest grossing.

I just checked both Avatar and Avengers: Endgame and both have the exact same dollar figure of $2.790 billion in their Infoboxes here at Wikipedia.

If both have the exact same figure, his can either one be highest grossing?

I know that shortly the point will be moot; but if "titles" are going to be thrown around, make sure the current numbers/facts support the "title."

Or am I missing something. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why Avatar's is as it is, but Avatar has grossed 2.789 billion while Endgame has grossed 2.790 billion. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I just checked Box Office Mojo and according to their figures, Avatar grossed $2,789,700,000 which for places only using the first four numbers would round to $2.790 billion. As for Avengers: Endgame, the 'current' gross is $2,790,216,193 which, by numbers alone, does top Avatar; but, again, places only using the first four numbers would come up with -- you guessed it -- $2.790 billion because the "2" (from the "216") does not create a round up situation.

It's instances like this where the full facts/details should be used and not abbreviated versions.

Glad that I wasn't missing something. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Inflation

So Endgame is now the highest-grossing film of all time... but only if you don't adjust for inflation. I think that's worth mentioning. Most people don't think about inflation; we should remind them of it. If you adjust for inflation, Endgame has yet to beat Avatar, and Gone With The Wind is the all-time greatest. I know it's not traditional for us to mention inflation in these matters but we should make an exception here. Kurzon (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Industry sources don’t use inflation. Toa Nidhiki05 12:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but Wikipedia is not "the industry". Wikipedia isn't for showbiz people, it's for everyone. We shouldn't be behold to insider jargon. Kurzon (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Adjusted for inflation" is the "insider jargon" in this situation. Additionally, the linked article mentions the inflation aspect. DonQuixote (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We don’t mention adjusted for inflation numbers in the ledes of articles for any active films in the top 10 as far as I know. It certainly hasn’t been the case on Avatar for the last 9 years. It’s generally used on articles for older films. Toa Nidhiki05 13:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

So? I think it's time to change this convention. Why are you such a conservative? Kurzon (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

When we say highest-grossing, we are referring to the money earned. No adjusting done. We don't need to spell that out. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If we say that it's the highest grossing film of all time, do we need to have similar sentiments on the other say, top 10 highest grossing films of all time? I agree with the others here that I don't think it's needed, and if it is, it's really something to probably discuss with WP:FILM to propose a change for adding it. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Not adjusting for inflation is the default position. People accept you are discussing nominal terms. When we adjust something for inflation it is necessary to state that because the baseline data is being manipulated in some way. If you look closely at Gone with the Wind (film) (full disclosure: I wrote a lot of that article), the article never uses the term "unadjusted for inflation", even though there are many unadjusted figures in there. The only time inflation is mentioned is when an inflation adjusted figure is mentioned. If you started adding "unadjusted for inflation" you would unintentionally create even more ambiguity because you would then have to do it for every financial quantity in the article so that the figures were unambiguous. Betty Logan (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "conservative convention," its just the most simple and concise way to state it. Factoring inflation into this figure just is not relevant. HAL333 15:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Independent production

It should be established here that this movie is an independent film, although distributed by a major studio. I have attempted to clarify this info in the article, and I will again soon, but be it known that Marvel Studios is no more or less an independent studio as, say, STX Films, A24, or Magnolia Pictures. The purpose of Marvel, then as now, like all other such companies, is to produce films outside of the studio system. The MCU films are, and should be seen as, independent productions. Hiphats 00:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be great if you can cite a reliable source stating that. DonQuixote (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

A Walt Disney subsidiary produces independent films? That’s hard to believe. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Marvel used to be independent before being bought out by Disney, and had a strict producer/distributor relationship with Paramount, but I am not sure of its status now. It may be an autonomous subsidiary like Miramax was but I am not sure whether that counts as "independent". Betty Logan (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

According to the IFTA, an independent film "is financed primarily outside of the six major U.S. studios." Considering that Disney is one of those six major studios, and that all of Marvel Studios' productions receive heavy financing from it (which would otherwise make impossible to cover their astronomical budgets), this defeats the concept of an independent film.--Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

"Surpassing Infinity War ..." in the lede

@SassyCollins: Should we really state that it surpassed Infinity Wars in 11 days in the lede? I can understand in the main body of the article or the article about records. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Hi, there, thanks for your message! Due to the tie between these two films, how well Infinity War itself did and then being smashed by this "second part" in 11 days, and finally going on to become no. 1 film is, all-in-all, a rare happening. This smashing within 11 days is, as far as I'm concerned, notable for lede. SassyCollins (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's hear if anybody else has anything to say on the matter. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with SassyCollins. The two films were shot back-to-back and are basically Part 1 and Part 2. Given how fast it beat IW, it's worth noting in the lede imo. Toa Nidhiki05 15:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Endgame box office total in lede

The box office total has passed the 2.795 mark. As such, I've changed the box office total in the lede to "nearly 2.8B" as opposed to "over 2.79B". Aside from the aesthetics of it, the actual amount is now closer to 2.8 than to 2.79. I appreciate anyone having an opposed opinion. Maybe a vote is necessary. (For what it's worth, I don't think it'll reach 2.8) SassyCollins (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO We could just write "2.795 billion" or "over 2.795 billion" or we could even write "2.8 billion". --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mjolnir Note in Plot section

User:SassyCollins recently restored a page revision re-inserting a Plot note about Captain America weilding Mjolnir. The reason given was "Although I tend to agree [to not having the note in the article], removing this breaks a reference." The note was originally removed by User:TropicAces for the reason: "That’s a comic fun fact but doesn’t really seem relevant to this plot summary." SassyCollins then suggested taking the discussion to the talk page.

In this instance, I am inclined to agree with both parties that the note is superflous to the Plot section's requirements. The pertinent part–that Stark, Rogers, and Thor fight Thanos but are outmatched–is included in the article already without mention of Rogers weilding Mjolnir. The issue here appears to stem from the fact that removing the note breaks a specific reference, but it is worth noting that the only time this reference is used in-article is by the note itself. Ideally, when the note is removed the reference should also be removed as well (since nothing else in the article is using that reference source).

Finally, this particular note does not, to my mind, meet the criteria required for its inclusion. Every other note in the Plot section is used to provide chronological context to the various Time Heists in a matter-of-fact manner (i.e. stating that X was depicted in film Y) but this note relies heavily upon fan speculation and theory (that Rogers has always been worthy etc.) with the movie Age of Ultron's name being included incidentally. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about this, but the note may be useful to explain the sentence "Rogers returns the Infinity Stones and Mjolnir to their original timelines ". After all, it isn't clear how he lifted up the hammer for the purpose. DeluxeVegan (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps something along the lines of "Stark, Thor, and a Mjolnir-weilding Rogers..." could be included into the main prose? We don't need to explain why he is able to lift Mjolnir, only that he can. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. SassyCollins (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2019

190.113.253.50 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2019 (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. Frood 02:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2019

"please change {{edit semi-protected|Avengers: Endgame|answered=no}} to {{edit extended-protected}} because it may need a better protection" 190.113.253.50 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 It does not need a better protection. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Inflation

I want to add the line "this movie is the highest-grossing of all time if one does not adjust for inflation". I know it's not conventional, but this is an exceptional case. In other movie articles, we don't mention inflation because it doesn't produce new insights. But in this specific case, it does. If you adjust for inflation, Endgame is not the top film. It didn't even beat Avatar. Gone With The Wind is still the top. Kurzon (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No, there is nothing really exceptional about this. Inflation does produce 'insights' for Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars, and Jurasic Park, highest-grossing films at their time, because Gone With the Wind, released much earlier, trumps all of them. Pretty much every highest-grossing film that was released after 1939, actually. Besides, this was already discussed here, where consensus was in favor of not including "adjusted for inflation". DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@DeluxeVegan: A lot of readers have the impression that Endgame is the absolute greatest of all time. They don't think about inflation. YOU are aware of the inflation issue, but to most of the readers, the issue of inflation doesn't occur to them. What's wrong with mentioning that? Think about the readers. Get out of your own head. Kurzon (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop with the PA tone. WP:BURDEN is on you to override the previous consensus, which had already addressed these questions. Best, DeluxeVegan (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019

Please add under Home Media "The Blu-Ray 3D release is to be released region-free and exclusive to the U.K." as per Blu-ray.com

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Avengers-Endgame-3D-Blu-ray/118110/ NimaZeighami (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: based on Infinity War, Age of Ultron, Ragnarok and Black Panther not including blu-ray 3D releases. NiciVampireHeart 00:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

Please Edit the Starring Roles in Avengers:Endgame by adding Elizabeth Olsen on the list please. I think it would be appreciated. SinisterZTV (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Olsen is listed in the appropriate place. NiciVampireHeart 21:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sean Gunn as Kraglin is in the film

This Wikipedia page says that Sean Gunn did reprise his role as Kraglin in the film, and it was confirmed in several behind the scenes featurettes, but it was uncertain if footage of his appearance was used. However, there's one shot in the film that shows Kraglin, and that's during the beginning of the battle after the charge. Kraglin is briefly shown next to Thor and Star-Lord, fighting Thanos' army by firing two guns. So, that confirms Sean Gunn is in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.54.98 (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what the article already says... --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The article said that it was uncertain if any footage was used, but one shot of Kraglin firing two guns at the beginning of the battle confirms that it is certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.248.118 (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Highest grossing Walt Disney Studios film

Facu-el Millo recently reverted an edit which saw "the highest-grossing film released by Walt Disney Studios" removed from the Box Office section on the grounds that it was "redundant." Presumabely, this is because the full sentence already reads: "It is the highest-grossing film of all time, as well as the second-highest-grossing film of all time in the United States and Canada, and the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time worldwide when adjusted for inflation." Now, whilst I can see why one might consider the addition redundant when the article subject is already described as the highest-grossing film of all time, I feel that it is worth point out that, technically speaking, the two lists have different criteria that a film has to meet for inclusion on said list. Specifically, films included on the list removed in the reverted addition have to have been released by Walt Disney Studios (of, course).

Now, I'll openly admit that I'm easy either way as to whether the link is included, but because of this slight difference in criteria required for inclusion on this list, I do feel like it should be included in the article at the point in which it was included. The fact that the top entries on both the "highest-grossing film of all time" list and the "the highest-grossing film released by Walt Disney Studios" list are both the same film is coincidental. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included, because it is, in fact, redundant. Then why shouldn't we mention that it's the highest grossing Marvel Studios film, highest grossing superhero film etc.? Being the highest-grossing film of all time makes all those others irrelevant. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the total gross incorrect?

The page says the movie grossed nearly 2.8 billion, which is simply not true. It ALMOST came close to 2.7, so this is wrong. Can anyone fix it?Paulo G. G. Ribeiro (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

$2.79 billion rounds up to $2.8 billion. So it's correct.Crboyer (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I confused 798 million with 2,800 billion. My mistake. Paulo G. G. Ribeiro (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Should Jacob Batalon be included on the cameos page.

As every other actor/actress is included on the cast list why is Jacob Batalon omitted even though hes credited in the movie?DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

He isn’t.... Rusted AutoParts 01:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

nevermind i just saw itDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

Hello Wikipedia,

I would like to make an edit request so I can add extra content that would intrigue fellow readers and fix some grammar mistakes.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay heisenburg 1 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Tribute to Iron Man

Can we add these,

In 2019, following Stark's death in Avengers: Endgame, a statute representing the character in his was Iron Man armor was erected in Forte dei Marmi, Italy. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

References

If you ask me, I think it’s appropriate. Would fit in with the Reception/real life impact/legacy etc etc, section. 2600:1004:B013:8DFC:D552:284B:ED:9436 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Disintegration

The current version of the article refers to several people as being disintegrated, such as Peter Parker and Hawkeye's family. While technically correct, I think this takes away from the quality of the prose. Does it seem like a good idea to word these events/character developments in a different way? Airbornemihir (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC) (please ping when replying)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In my above edit, I inadvertently made a sentence confusing as to whether Bruce Banner uses the gauntlet or the Infinity Stones' gamma radiation. Let me fix it. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"The Blip" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Blip. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

See relisted discussion here. Airbornemihir (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019

Add Chris Evans name before Robert Downey Jr. 27.6.143.193 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Where in the article (those names appear more than a dozen times each) and why? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done IP is most likely referring to the infobox/cast list to change the order that is set by the film's billing block, not arbitrarily. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

We should not be italicizing RT, MC and BOM

I've bee involved in the CS1 debate for months, and one thing that came out of it is: We are not required in "cite web" to use "website=" and we are not required to list parent companies under "publisher=". We're not even required to use a cite template at all.

No mainstream footnoting style, not AP, not Chicago Manual of Style, not MLA, italicizes Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Box Office Mojo in footnoting. Yet we have at least one editor here who insists they be italicized even though there is no requirement that they be italicized. Contrary to an edit-summary claim, Template:Cite web does not require it. And "Cite web" isn't even MOS but just a template — MOS certainly doesn't require it.

I'm calling for a discussion on this talk so we can actually talk about the pros and cons of italicizing vs. not doing so. There is no compelling reason to use a non-mainstream footnoting style that makes Wikipedia look eccentric — no reason to italicize company names like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Either way, we should arrive at a clear consensus. Either we italicize them —Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo— or we don't. The usage I've seen employed recently is to italicize them and include, particularly with RT and MC, the parent companies under "publisher", so I keep doing that. The same way we aren't required to do it, we aren't required not to do it. I would suggest we start the discussion on the Manual of Style/Film talk page. El Millo (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I thank you for your collegial reply. Porting this discussion there. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#We should not be italicizing RT, MC and BOM. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Gamora's absence

In the last paragraph of the Plot section I'd like to have pointed out that Gamora is missing and Quill is looking for her. It seems highly likely that this will become relevant in the upcoming GotG Vol3. I'd suggest adding a sentence like this:

Following Stark's funeral, Thor appoints Valkyrie as the new ruler of New Asgard and joins the Guardians of the Galaxy. Gamora has been absent from the funeral and Quill can be seen searching for her with his ship's instruments. Rogers returns the Infinity Stones and Mjolnir to ...

(I'm also aware of the deleted scene where she can be seen walking away, however I don't think the deleted scene merits mentioning, because it wasn't in the actual film.)

Thanks in advance, 93.237.4.123 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This is too thin of a narrative element and we don't speculate on sequels here. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Final international box office total

Not sure if this is true, but apparently China has officially updated its box office numbers permitting Endgame to now be the first film ever to cross 2.8 billion. Just wanted to share this. Thanks!!

https://mcucosmic.com/2020/01/01/with-updated-box-office-numbers-china-avengers-endgame-becomes-the-first-2-8-billion-movie/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.64.131 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC) :Couldn't find any reliable sources on it. Probably not true. - HAL333 23:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Inflation

I want to add a line to the lede that mentions that Gone with the Wind is still the highest-grossing movie when you take inflation into account. A lot of people think Endgame is the biggest movie of all time, and I want to clear this misconception. I have sources to cite, and I don't need to provide an exact inflation-adjusted figure. I raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Inflation-adjusted box office take, or number of tickets sold Kurzon (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

Avengers Endgames gross is only 2797800564 - 2789679784 = 8120770 8120770 is only 0.29% of Avatars total gross. In statistics, values of 0,5% or less, are taken as insignificant. Therefore, Avengers Endgame has not passed Avatars record, as the amount is insignificant. Avatar is really still record holder. Endgame has got close.

92.11.147.27 (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources say this is the highest grossing film, as 2797800564 > 2789679784. Danski454 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Add a phrase to the part after mentioning Cap retrieves more Pym particles

I feel it would be fair to mention that Cap caught a glimpse of Peggy since there was a mention of Tony bumping into his father. I would have placed it myself, but since there's a restriction on it, I have to suggest it here. I do hope someone sees this and implements it. This would also help the part towards the end of article make more sense (where Steve stays in the past to live with Peggy). How long does it take for someone to take notice of this request? It's been over a week, and I would think the one who has access is a dedicated MCU fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.71.87.34 (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC) --DaveDanny13 (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense for parallel structure. Done. Word count now 696. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

GA?

Isn't this article ready for Good Article status? El Millo (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably should request a copy-edit first.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been doing some work to update Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame in my sandbox, and am planning to make some updates to this article as I find information while working on that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• McDonald’s Endgame Rocket.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot

Hello. I feel that the word "spies" is not very accurate or justified in the context.

"Rogers steals Pym Particles from Hank Pym to use in returning to the present, and spies lost love Peggy Carter."

If you look at the scene in the context of what was happening it looked like Steve Rogers wasn't spying. The mission was definitely covert and their (Steve & Tony) actions will count as theft or espionage from SHIELD's point of view. But Steve happened to be in the same adjacent room where Peggy was. And if you look at his body language and if you consider his mission I feel that it is not very accurate (if not incorrect) to write "spies lost love Peggy Carter". I wish the sentence framing was different or a different word was used instead of "spies lost love Peggy Carter". I hope you will agree. Again, I am not sure but I feel like that. Thank you. Ravi arnie (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Grammatically, "spies" is the correct word. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The context is "I spy with my little eye." DonQuixote (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

wikt:spy: "To spot; to catch sight of."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

The music section is missing a link to the Dear Mr Fantasy song [[3]] which plays over the opening titles. 220.238.129.183 (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, this is a short summary with a pointer to a more detailed article; not every song needs to be mentioned. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Label as an epic?

considering their scope, tone, and themes, I feel like Endgame and Infinity War could both be described as epics and should be added to Category:American epic films

That would require reliable sourcing. Rusted AutoParts 04:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This was added to the lead, it had no source nor was it discussed in the article, so i've removed it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Untitled Avengers film" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Untitled Avengers film. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Untitled Avengers film until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Should it be epic film?

Because of the way it looked the scope and fight and some critics calling it epic. I think this should be labeled as epic. Kohcohf (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

We only list the primary genre, per WP:FILMLEAD. In this case that is superhero film. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of other film articles that have sources calling the subject film an "epic" have the term included in the lead sentence. For example: The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Lawrence of Arabia, and Avatar. If it's good enough for these articles, and the sources calling Infinity War and Endgame are reliable and noteworthy, there's no reason not to include the label here. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, besides this film crosses many genres; comedy, sci-fi, fantasy, etc. There is no reason that this additional genre should take preference over the rest and including them all would lead to the WP:SEAOFBLUE that guidelines suggest we avoid. Just stick to the primary genre per WP:FILMLEAD and the rest can be mentioned/categorized elsewhere in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok understood Thank you Kohcohf (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

incomplete cast information

cast information includes scarlett johansson’s diet and exercise regimen but neglects to provide this information for any other cast member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.208.60 (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can find reliably sourced material about this for another actor, it can be included. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Box Office Update

The film had crossed the $2.8 billion mark after $3 million in previously unreported grosses from China were included earlier this year. So, the final gross would be $2.8008 billion. Rajan51 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Why are nobody responded to this? Those are two very reliable sources. Enjoyer of World^💬 06:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Because there wasn't a question in the post to respond to, it was a statement. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In case it was not clear, the request was to update the box office of the film with the addition of the previously unreported grosses. ~Rajan51 (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Avengers: Endgame/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	I don't see any issues with the prose.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The plot is just short of 700 words so that passes.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The sentence "Downey was one of the few actors to read the entire screenplay for the film" seems dishonest. The source cited says he was the only "Avengers star" to "receive" the entire screenplay, probably because his character is in almost every scene from beginning to end.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citation 2 (BFI) actually doesn't say this was an American movie but cite 1 (bbfc) does, so I'd cut BFI or use for something else. Collider (cite 9) doesn't actually confirm Chris Evans in this film but NYT (cite 6) does, so fix it. Neither Daily Beast (cite 25) nor Screen Rant (cite 26) say anything about this film, so I'd remove them. Honestly, some of this fails WP:REFBOMB. You've no source for Benedict Wong, so I recommend adding this from ScreenRant. Hollywood Reporter says nothing about Tom Holland. Dave Bautista's tweet is not allowable for his role as Drax, per WP:SPS. Radio Times says nothing about Ebony Maw; it should be the following Screenrant cite. Screenrant (cite 65) says nothing about F.R.I.D.A.Y.; that should be the Tipperary piece. Comicbook.com says nothing about seven minutes of footage or what's in it but IGN does, so I'd move that Comicbook cite to the end of the paragraph. The claim of "substantial cultural impact" isn't covered by SyFy Wire so please remove. I don't see evidence in Deadline that this was fastest to make $1B. Regarding widest release ever, I see no evidence about Despicable Me. I also see no evidence for fastest to pass $600M. Cites don't support the $29.3 and Avatar claim. Please remove IMDb as a citation!	Pass
(c) (original research)	Some of the assertions about sales (noted above) seem like OR, but generally this passes.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	COPYVIO detector says it's fine	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)		Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
I see no POV issue here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit war or content dispute in evidence	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	every image passes for permissions, thanks largely to Gage Skidmore	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	meh	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	I need to see fixes made.

Discussion

• @Chris troutman: Issues have been fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• @Chris troutman: Another current reference issues above are fixed. Chompy Ace 22:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Chris troutman: All new issues have been fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Some Dude From North Carolina: The source you added about cultural impact is about the entire MCU, not just this movie. The citation mentions that this movie and its other half created impact not seen since the first Avenger movie. The claim needs to go and the sentence about the statue belongs in the section about Iron Man. Regarding Avatar, the citation says that Endgame's $770.8M was what beat Avatar, not the $29.4M three-day. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Chris troutman: removed cultural impact with reference and removed Avatar and $29.4M sentence. Chompy Ace 11:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Chris troutman: Another current reference issues have been fixed, is there more reference issues in this article to fix? Chompy Ace 04:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Chompy Ace: Cite 2 is IMDb and is not permitted per WP:SPS. Replace it with something else. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not IMDb, it's Box Office Mojo, a reliable source that is owned by IMDb. El Millo (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @Chris troutman: Give me an another shot for this. Cite 2 no longer mentions IMDb. Chompy Ace 06:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Reverted. The mention of IMDb is irrelevant. The source is BOM and it is reliable, IMDb is the owner of the website cited. El Millo (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
          • From what I've read at RSN, Box Office Mojo is not widely considered as reliable, and I'm not promoting this until that cite is gone. Partisans in this debate would do well to stand clear. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
            • @Chris troutman: I think you mistook Box Office Mojo for IMDb right there. Let me explain it better because I'm not being clear. Box Office Mojo is one of our most reliable sources for box office numbers, we use it on virtually every film article there is. Box Office Mojo was bought by IMDb in 2008. After this discussion about italicizing Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo, it was established as consensus that we can use {{cite BOM}} for references to Box Office Mojo, in order to not italicize it (its use is in fact encouraged at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Article italics). IMDb, as the owner of Box Office Mojo, is automatically included as part of the text in {{cite BOM}}. Furthermore, the IMDb website itself is unreliable per WP:RS/IMDB, but not the websites that the IMDb company owns, otherwise we wouldn't use Box Office Mojo. El Millo (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
              • @Facu-el Millo: Yes, at first I hung up on IMDb but, after reading about the issues with the reliability of Box Office Mojo (like the double counting), I'm not sold that it's reliable. Further, you are one of the few voices at WT:FILM that seem to think BOM is fine and I take a broader view of consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

BOM is by far the standard for box office grosses, and the vast majority of the Film project agrees with this, given it is listed as such at MOS:FILM#Box office as being a source to use for such information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Fans of a particular subject would say that. I don't see that same consensus at RSN. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I'm not speaking as "a fan". I'm speaking as an editor who actively works on film articles and participates in the Film project and related discussions. I have no active knowledge of discussions you're claiming at RSN that states BOM is unreliable. As well, I've done a quick search of RSN to see, and I see no recent discussions to support that. Yes, there has been some instances of BOM double counting which WP:BOXOFFICE is working on, but this film is not one of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking for a second opinion; we'll see what another reviewer says. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but look at any modern film article that is a GA - all use Box Office Mojo. I will also notify the film project to your request. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:FILM notice here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo is absolutely the most reliable source for box office results. It is used on every film article. Rusted AutoParts 15:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Chris troutman, Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, particularly per WP:USEBYOTHERS. For example, The New York Times has referenced BOM repeatedly in the past year as seen here. Can you point to the WP:RSN discussions that contest Box Office Mojo? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I'm inexperienced in editing film articles. With that out of the way, I find it particularly compelling that MOS:Film#Box Office specifically mentions Box Office Mojo, as User:Favre1fan93 pointed out. And as far as I can tell from a brief look at its revision history, MOS:FILM has mentioned Box Office Mojo as a permissible source to use since the page's creation 14 years ago. Perhaps people have brought up legitimate concerns about Box Office Mojo at WP:RSN, but unresolved discussions shouldn't supersede longstanding consensus reflected in Wikipedia guidelines when deciding whether or not to pass an article for GA review. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Chris troutman: I really didn't want this "discussion" to continue, so I have swapped the "Box Mojo / IMDb" reference, with one from The Numbers, which someone could call a "more credible" source. For the budget, I have also added a reference, from Deadline Hollywood, where the budget can be found in the article's chart. I hope this addresses some of the problems and issues, and can help this article become a good one quicker, later on. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Chris troutman: Surprise! Chompy Ace 00:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Chompy Ace: Thanks! This article is now a GA. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Plot) Setting year

I feel it’s appropriate and important to set the year the film takes place, considering throughout the plot line there are constant references to the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, where the Avengers travel to, and characters referenced by their year, to differentiate from their present selves (ie 2014 Thanos). In this circumstance, would it make more sense to start the plot with “in 2018”, or include “in 2023” after the five year time jump. AlienChex (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mis-lead (pun intended) on "becoming the highest-grossing film of all time"

@Toa Nidhiki05: would you please elaborate on your "not how this works" comment here: Special:Diff/1015496792? To all contributors, any other ideas on good ways to clarify that "becoming the highest-grossing film of all time" is intended to convey that it was the peak position and not the current position? Without additional clarification it is conveying information to the reader in a misleading manner, and only once the reader gets all the way to the Reception would the reader realize what is actually being said. That doesn't seem like a GA lead if it can't summarize without context of the rest of the article (and it could be seen as having a non-neutral spin). -2pou (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps appending "from July 2019 until March 2021" would work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Or "the then-highest grossing film of all time"? I feel like adding the dates as a qualifier makes the sentence a tad too long, and may need additional changes further down the line should it ever be re-released and (once again) top Avatar. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not in support of this, because "highest-grossing film of all time" should remain as is to note that that is what was obtained, even if it isn't current. That's why I suggested the date addition. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I support the date method as well. It isn't too overbearing, and it simply states the facts. A reader doesn't need to read further unless interested in finding out why an end date is listed. If another leapfrog happens, the article would need updating in the body, and presumably the lead would still need to be updated in the latter method as well (i.e. "the then-highest grossing film of all time"). It's not likely that no update would be needed in any case. -2pou (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Dates added in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

172.98.149.73 (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please let me edit

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Grammar correction needed

In the Plot section, in the fourth paragraph, there is an erroneous, unnecessary 'the' preceding the second Thor in the first sentence:

"Meanwhile, Rocket and Thor travel to Asgard in 2013; Rocket extracts the Reality Stone from Jane Foster, while the Thor gets encouragement from his mother, Frigga, and retrieves his old hammer, Mjolnir."

As I am not able to make edits to this protected page, I am requesting that someone who does have permissions make the edit to remove that 'the' to make the sentence more readable and grammatically correct. Thank you. Dcovington (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed by Raps19. —El Millo (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

2601:646:8C03:7CC0:6D63:5135:3B00:6C0 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to edit to make Wikipedia look better

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. If you are interested in making Wikipedia better, and possibly being able to edit pages like this yourself, why not register? Cheers! —Sirdog9002 (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wong as Sorcerer Supreme

Since we know he attained the title during the film offscreen, do we add it to his bio here? Or is Shang-Chi and Multiverse of Madness enough?--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear when he actually received the title, but based on how it was presented in NWH, it is easier to add that title to his post-Endgame appearances. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Chris Pratt to the cast

Chris Pratt was also in this movie. He had a speaking part. Why is he not listed among the cast members? 2601:681:8800:DFF0:5959:A693:5267:C2B3 (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

He's mentioned in the Cast section along with all those who returned from the dusted. —El Millo (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Benedict Cumberbatch to the cast

Add Benedict Cumberbatch to the cast 2A00:A040:196:83B5:2D35:C82F:9D47:ED0 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

He’s first on the paragraph. He’s not in the bulleted list because he doesn’t show up until the climax when the snapped heroes are brought in--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Lcerone.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Change character Pepper Potts description from Stark's husband to Stark's wife. 24.209.237.242 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks for catching that. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

] Anthony Lane of The New Yorker gave the film a compromising review, finding it to be overdeveloped and overwrought, stating, "The one thing you do need to know about Avengers: Endgame is that it runs for a little over three hours, and that you can easily duck out during the middle hour, do some shopping, and slip back into your seat for the climax. You won't have missed a thing."[200] It was criticsed for its 3 hour screen time. Can we please add that In the critical section of the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reference878 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to? I’m sure the sample we have is ample CreecregofLife (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

Please add the following template to the page:

2601:241:300:B610:D80F:9308:353B:DFF7 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, it's been added. Harrison (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)