Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lilly and Rudd confirmed?

Although they do have multi-film contracts, its not set in stone that they will reprise their roles as their respective characters. We should really wait until Marvel Studios confirms their involvement in either a press release or via third party source. Npamusic (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Peyton Reed article

Maybe something in here worth noting. - DinoSlider (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Literally just added info from this. Haha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There's also this article from MTV. Richiekim (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Added. Thanks Richie. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Douglas

This article seems to confirm Douglas returning. - DinoSlider (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's Reed stating that Hank will be a large part of the film, with Douglas again, but the most recent info we have from Douglas not too long ago was he was in talks. So I think we should possible wait. But we can see what other's think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is more what Reed wants rather than what has been set in stone ("his interest in"). We should wait for something more concrete, I think. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And as I mentioned, it's not like this is news that Hank will be in the film. We have the source from a few weeks ago from Douglas saying he was working out the deal to star, so I'd (again) say wait as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

McKay

The author of the deadline article makes two different statements. The first; "Scribes Andrew Barrer & Gabriel Ferrari have closed deals to team with Paul Rudd and write Ant-Man And The Wasp" is definitive and passes WP:V. As you can read there is no qualification to this statement, it is precise and direct: Andrew Barrer & Gabriel Ferrari have closed deals. The second; "I’m told that Adam McKay, The Big Short director who was one of the Ant-Man writers, will work with Barrer & Ferrari and Rudd to break the story, and then the three of them will go off and write the script." is hearsay. All we can say here is that author was told McKay will work on the story. Saying McKay will work on the story fails WP:V as that is not what the author said. He purposely crafted his writing to avoid a direct confirmation. This has nothing to do with an official confirmation from Marvel, but has everything to the author's choice of words.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

McKay says he is in now: source - DinoSlider (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be WP:SYNTH if we unhid the "Story by" parameter, and couple this with the Deadline source to say that the story will be by McKay, plus the other writers, with the screenplay just by the other writers? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yse, since neither source directly credits McKay for the story. Not to worry, we will have more details about McKay's involvement soon enough.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Since this source indicates tha McKay has been in the writers room with Rudd, Gabriel, Andrew, and Reed stating this as fact, can we now add him in somewhere on the page? I know it's from April, but no one has said anything on this matter since (see above) and I thought I'd chime in. Npamusic (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Rating

Reed tweeted this earlier [1] not sure whether he was joking or not though. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

James Gunns response... [2] SG73 (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a joke. Disney would never release an NC-17 film, and the verdict is still out if they'd tread into R territory. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Highly doubtful they'd ever go in the "R" route. They're owned by Disney and out of all the 13+ films released, not one has been rated R or had the "f" bomb in any film. Npamusic (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Logo

New logo was revealed during Disney's presentation at CinemaCon 2017. The logo has the film as "Ant-Man & The Wasp". Something to see if that is how publications / Marvel refers to the film moving forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Renner

I'm not sure if Showbiz411 passes WP:RS, but they're "confirming" that Renner will appear in this film, at the cost of Mission Impossible 6. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: This actually looks reliable to me, given the author is Roger Friedman who started the site while he was at The Hollywood Reporter. So I'd say we can use this. Any thoughts on this @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, and Richiekim:? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Friedman seems to be a reliable source, so yeah, it's seems good to use. - Richiekim (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Judging from his Wikipedia page, I would agree.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Peyton Reed says this is fake news.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: I still think we should include how it was reported in the pre-production section, and add what Reed said. So something like: "The following month, Jeremy Renner was set to reprise his role of Clint Barton / Hawkeye in the film;[ref] however Reed called the report on his involvement "fade new".[ref]" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if he was never set to appear. Also, as you know, WP:RUMOR states "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Its not like he was cast, then backed out. Its a minor blip, better left out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Move to mainspace checklist

It seems like forever since we've needed to move a film draft, but we've had plenty of other things MCU-related to keep us busy. We have sources confirming filming is starting on July 6, 2017, so it will take some of the "have they/haven't they" out of move. As I've done in the past, here's a checklist of things to get done in terms of moving this to the mainspace.

1. Move to the mainspace! I (Favre1fan93) have mover rights to accomplish this, and will (hopefully) move the article after midnight EST on July 6.  Done
   1. Be sure to remove {{Draft article}} and unhide the categories.  Done
2. Change the template at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films section and Ant-Man (film)#Sequel from {{further}} to {{main}} and update the table on the List of films article to link directly to the new article and change its status to "Filming".  Done
3. Replace the whole Ant-Man (film)#Sequel section with the "minimal" content at User:Favre1fan93/sandbox#Ant-Man_and_the_Wasp.  Done
4. Upload the film logo (which the newest one I don't actually think has officially been revealed?).
5. Fix redirects currently going to Ant-Man (film)#Sequel to the new mainspace article, as seen here.  Done
6. Add the article link to all the nav boxes used in the article.  Done
7. If Marvel provides us with a press release indicating filming starting, add any info from that to our respective pages (castings mainly).

Let me know if there are any questions or concerns with completing the move on July 6 as intended. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the move related items have been completed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Cassie Lang

The SDCC poster from Andy Park features Cassie Lang above Scott's left hand. It's definitely a thin argument to say she is definitely in the film, but is a good indication she might be and to be on the look out for some confirmation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Idioms & reverts

I've reverted the revert of my edit [3] largely because I fixed a grammar issue, and the argument against that fix is that the uncorrected phrasing maintains the integrity of what Peyton Reed said, 'exactly as he said it'. However, if we want to quote directly and maintain verbiage exactly as the source says it, we should quote directly (with all errors and flubs intact). When we paraphrase, as the text currently is, we don't maintain grammatical infelicities if we can repair them and maintain the source's intent. If folks are set on the phrasing being exactly as Reed said it, then the material should be a direct quotation. If it's going to remain paraphrased, then it needs to be amended so that it's not an awkward, incorrect usage. Grandpallama (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The only "awkward, incorrect usage" is what you tried to change it to. This a pretty standard thing to say, and I don't understand why you are taking such an issue with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that as it is, is not awkward and a common phrase. Users/readers are not going to be confused by it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It is very awkward, and it's wrong, and the current construction is what is confusing; not only is not standard, but I've never heard this used as a verb in this way before. You don't saying "paying off elements" when using the term "payoff" to indicate a satisfying conclusion;[4] the relevant usage here is 29f, where is something is paying off, not when you are paying off something else. When Favre1fan93 first reverted my fix, he even mentioned its noun usage in this context, which is true--except that the sentence in question isn't using payoff as a noun, it's employing a verb phrase.

When you use pay off with an object (e.g., paying off cars), it means something inherently different. To use "paying off" in this sense, you'd have to restructure the sentence so that it doesn't say you're "paying off elements" and switch to intransitive use. I really don't get the confusion here, or the objection to my compromise, but I'm not incorrect about the grammar. If you think "paying off elements" is so critical to correctly communicating Reed's intent, we should just turn that sentence into a direct quote, move the citation a little (since right now it actually comes 'before' the info being cited), and both parties are happy. This was a pretty reasonable edit on my part, backed up by a pretty reasonable compromise suggested by me (since we should always just quote the source directly whenever there is a potential issue like this), so adamstom97's immediately borderline hostile argument just to keep this odd phrasing in smacks a bit of WP:own, which I notice is not a new suggestion about comic and comic-related articles.

Rather than edit war over this (because I don't feel it's critical my wording be what's used), I've decided to just quote it directly, to which no one should object. Grandpallama (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I misspoke--the cite doesn't come before the statement, but it comes two citations later, instead of directly after. Grandpallama (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrap Party

I've never of this website before, but it looks like principal photography may be over. - DinoSlider (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And then there's a more reliable source which unfortunately seems to border on WP:FRUIT. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Screen Rant implies that there is probably a week or so left, given the general practice to have wrap parties before one actually finishes. Also, it should be noted the original Instagram posts that Screen Rant cites have both been deleted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Filming back in San Fran

Apparently, according to this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

‘Where Were Ant-Man and the Wasp?’

‘Where Were Ant-Man and the Wasp?’ [5] More to follow tomorrow hopefully--Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

[6] another source] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sean Kleier plays Geoffrey Ballard

Sean Kleier was confirmed last year for a pivotal role, and seemingly it's Geoffrey Ballard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.234.131 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Where's your source for Sean Kleier being cast? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I found this ScreenRant source (doesn't mention a character) but I'm not sure if this is a reliable source. Rusted AutoParts 22:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Their source traces back to The Hashtag Show, which is unreliable, so WP:FRUIT would apply. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Billing block

Did I miss a discussion where we no longer go by the billing block? Harris, Fortson, Dastmalchian and Park have been removed countless times now despite being in the billing block, which has been what we’ve gone by for as long as I remember. Infinity War was an exception due to the sheer amount of people in the billing. Rusted AutoParts 21:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Infinity War was an exception. The template documentation still suggests to use the billing block.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I can’t revert the edit without going into 3RR territory so if someone could amend the listing it’d be appreciated. Rusted AutoParts 21:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Complete Cast List surfaced

Here is the complete list. Interesting is that there are several younger versions of the main cast. http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/06/20/ant-man-and-the-wasp-movie-2018-cast-flashbacks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.188.91 (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So is Elihas Starr (aka Egghead) in the movie or not then? I tried to add that to the article after I saw that someone had posted it on the Egghead article, but it got removed. His name is on the cast list at the comicbook.com page. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Disney reveals Ant-Man and the Wasp's runtime

Disney has revealed through their media site that Ant-Man and the Wasp is 118 minutes long (same runtime as the first): http://www.wdsmediafile.com/media/AntManAndTheWasp/writen-material/AntManAndTheWasp5b15a0f3dbd04.pdf. Hope we can add this into the movie's wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.53.84 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I just had a look at this, and noticed that it lists Stephen Broussard as a producer alongside Feige. Has any of the other regulars here noticed this? It seems strange since Feige usually produces the MCU films on his own and this is the first time I have heard of Broussard actually producing the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. From this international poster, Broussard is listed as a producer. I think this is something we should keep our eye out on. I've been avoiding the small TV spots/trailers that have been releasing of late, but have any of those included the billing at the end? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I also try not to watch the TV spots, but the fact that it is listed as such on that poster is well indicates to me that this is probably a happening thing - perhaps the beginning of Feige taking a step down or at least lightening his load? We should keep an eye out for one of the trades to mention something about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to including Broussard as a producer in the infobox here, and in the table at the LoF page, and then be on the look out for commentary to include in the article here, because that is definitely notable. We could also see if this continues with Captain Marvel too. Also, @Tenebrae: if you happen to be seeing the film early, and doing junket interviews, if you talk with Feige, is this something you could potentially ask? A reasoning behind Broussard receiving full producer credit, not executive producer credit? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:,@Adamstom.97:,@Tenebrae:: IMDb has Broussard listed as EP. SassyCollins (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

IMDb is a good indicator to look up a potential credit, but it shouldn't be used to support such credit. The Disney PDF so far is the most accurate we have until the film is actually released and we can see what happens then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Post-credits scene

The scene is not purely a joke, and even if it were similar "joke" scenes have been included in The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy and its sequel, and Thor: Ragnarok. The only one we don't mention is the Captain America PSA at the end of Spider-Man: Homecoming. Seeing as we are under the word limit, it would be easy to include something. Toa Nidhiki05 02:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what other articles do (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) we follow WP:FILMPLOT which says The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail. The post-credits scene for this film is a giant ant playing the drums. If that was in the middle of the film, it would not be mentioned because it is a specific scene and a joke. You only want to add it because it is after the credits, but that doesn't change what it actually is. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a giant ant playing drums oblivious to the snap. There's an emergency warning on the TV and the entire city is silent. Could easily have something like:

In a post-credits scene, Lang's ant decoy continues his daily routine in Lang's apartment, oblivious to the cataclysmic event.

Could be worded better, but it's worth noting. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That is still not noteworthy. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You can say what you want, but it seems like these scenes are generally noteworthy, and there's plenty of room. Toa Nidhiki05 03:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely worth nothing. It's an entire scene. Regardless of whether it was a "joke" or not, it included implicit details as far as the aftermath of the mid-credits scene. We just don't leave scenes out completely, especially for MCU films, for example. So far consensus leans toward inclusion. R9tgokunks ⯃ 00:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice how there are other scene descriptions not included? Do you suggest we change the plot summary to a scene-by-scene breakdown? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it is noteworthy. While it technically is a joke, the ant decoy is playing drums while half of the universe is disintegrating, how is that not noteworthy? On a personal note, alot of people (myself included) sometimes go to Wikipedia to check how many post/mid credits scenes a film has, if any. This is helpful to see if it's worth our time staying during the credits or not, and as Toa said, there is precedent for including small post credits scenes in the Plot section, even if they're small jokes. Armegon (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been had many times before, and the result is the same. The snap is already noted, so the only thing the post-credit scene adds is a joke about an ant playing the drums. That should not be mentioned. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, 3 are in support for it and only 1 is opposed for it. You do the math. Armegon (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not decide anything by voting. All of the concerns raised here so far have already been brought up in previous discussions and been discredited. The consensus remains for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There have been no other discussions on this on this article. Consensus stands in support. R9tgokunks ⯃ 05:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus comes from other articles with joke post-credit scenes, and WP:FILMPLOT. No argument has been provided to counter the points already made, just a few editors here who want to ignore the established guidelines. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that... guidelines, not rules set in stone. Guidelines can be challenged through discussions in talk pages and if a consensus can be reached that contradicts a certain guideline, it should not be be ignored or discredited if it was discussed and agreed upon thoroughly. The consensus you claim that "remains for now" applies to other articles, not this one. The consensus here is that there is more support to include the post credit scene than there is to oppose including it. Armegon (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a joke scene, much like the Cap PSA one at the end of Homecoming. The scene is noted in the body of the article, so it isn't like it's completely being ignored, but Adam is correct that we shouldn't be including it in the plot summary, per WP:FILMPLOT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2018

I would like to add more information for the mis-credits scene part of the plot summary. I would like it to say as follows, "In a mid credits scene, Lang, Pym, Janet, and Hope are preparing to send Lang into the Quantum Realm to collect Quantum Energy to help Ava. Lang goes in and successfully collect the energy. As he requests that they pull him out of the Quantum Realm, there is radio silence and Lang starts to panic. It is then shown that Pym, Janet, and Hope have disintegrated due to the events of Avengers: Infinity War, leaving Lang trapped in the Quantum Realm." Oswegojoe2022 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done We do not go into that much detail in plot summaries. This is not a scene-by-scene breakdown of the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request release dates

Why is this article totally locked instead of allowing flagged edits?

Anyhow, the article addresses the issue of the UK release date being delayed by the World Cup but reading an article from the Radio Times (published by the BBC) I think it should also be mentioned that there is another very logical factor in the delay and that is competition from another Disney movie namely Incredibles 2. As the article explains the World Cup ends Sunday, making the delayed release seem unnecessarily long. However if you consider that Incredibles 2 has also been delayed, then the even longer delay for Antman makes sense. The Express and others such as the The Independant making similar points and placing it in the broader context of various movies being reshuffled.

Request: update the release section to mention Incredibles 2 as another factor in the delay. Thanks -- 109.76.232.154 (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I find it amusing that enough people were complaining about it that the cast even joked about it to with Lily and Rudd making comments too. -- 109.76.232.154 (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edits. -- 109.76.176.156 (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Ernie Hart?

Considering that the end credits include Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby for the “based on” credits but not Ernie Hart, should we still include him in the infobox? - Richiekim (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that if his name was not included, it should not be listed in the infobox.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

End-credits scene

Am I wrong in taking the end-credits scene to mean that the rest of Lang's family were also disintegrated by Thanos? The house is completely empty, the news has the alert-test function on, and the only thing left is the drummer ant (showing that Lang's control of the ant is still working). What are everyone else's thoughts? If so it should be mentioned that an end-credits scene reveals they all were killed by his finger snap too.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no indication that any other characters should have been in the house, since Lang's family have their own house and Luis could have been at work, etc. So I don't think it is clear that this was the intention for the scene. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is the end credit scene not mentioned in the plot summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.155.29 (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Budget

Forbes and Deadline confirme that the budget of this movie is only $165 milion and not 195 milion. James Douglas Corden (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

James Douglas Corden Agreed, source for 195M is an anonymous person. Restored. SassyCollins (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Plot reverts

I'm having trouble modifying the plot section without being reverted. My first edit was to address the strange situation where all the male characters were referred to by their last name and the female with their first. This was reverted with the nonsensical explanation that only the two female characters with the same surname were referred to by their first name, ignoring Ava Starr, who is called Ava. I reverted this saying as much and, in the middle of making further edits to the plot was reverted again. I posted my further edits to the plot and this, too, was reverted with no real explanation. @Adamstom.97: do you care to explain your absurd edit warring? Can we get on the same page here? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't just show up and completely change the plot summary, as this has been formed from many different editors working on it since the film released and so has inherent consensus behind it. If you have a major issue with it as it currently is then you should bring up your concerns here, at the talk page. I have explained to you why the names are used as they are, and though I forgot about Ava in my explanation it does still apply. There are two characters with the surname "Starr" mentioned in the summary, which is why she is referred to as Ava throughout. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I can change the plot summary. That's what WP:BRD is about. Since I Boldly edited and you Reverted, I came here to Discuss your objections, which you have not provided in either edit summary form or in talk page discussion. I will ask you once more, what are the objections you have with my edits to the plot? If you can't provide a cogent objection and continue to attempt to WP:OWN the article, I will consider your behavior a form of edit warring and respond accordingly. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As I explained at your ridiculously premature WP:AN/EW discussion, the "you" in my previous comment was a generic you. I was saying that the plot summary should not be arbitrarily changed because an editor thinks they can do better since there will always someone who thinks they should do better. Because of that, as I already explained, you should suggest any actual concerns with the plot here and if there is no objection then you should feel free to go ahead. It's just good manners. I have explained why we name characters the way we do, so if you have chosen to ignore that then I'm not quite sure what else to say to you. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Per BRD: editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. When in doubt, edit!

Per OWN: Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written.

In other words, nobody needs to ask your permission to edit an article. Telling someone otherwise is untoward, whether you use "generic you" or not.

Per WP:ROWN: For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse.

Per WP:REVEXP: Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion...If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page.

In other words, reverting should come along with a clear rationale. It's been several days and, despite several explicit requests, you have still not indicated what, if anything, you find objectionable about my edits to the plot summary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I never said you needed my permission, and I have already told you that the plot summary was written by multiple editors, not just me. I have also clearly explained my revert several times, so if you keep insisting that I have not then you are just being disruptive. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You explained the issue with the names, which I've addressed in my subsequent edits. You haven't explained anything else. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I've explained the issue with the names, and I've explained why one editor shouldn't make widespread changes to the consensus plot because they think they can do better. What else do you want from me? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: I have to agree here with Adamstom.97 with the intent of the revert. I have no real stake in what the plot actually is, but looking at your edit, you do make a big shift in the way the plot had previously been formatted (at least with the first and second paragraph), so I agree with Adam that maybe those changes should be discussed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I've been trying to discuss them for several days with no traction. So far, I have gotten no indication as to what the actual problems with my edits are, which is what a revert should come with. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that you made a major change for change's sake. I have already explained that to you. It is now on you to justify why that change should be made, or leave the article to be the consensus version. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the actual content of my edit? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I see both sides here:

adamstom97, it's best to avoid reverting unless you plan to engage in a complete breakdown of why you reverted that editor. Saying that a massive change to a section that already had consensus isn't a strong enough argument to justify a revert on its own; a thorough explanation from you is in order once you've been summoned to talk per WP:BRD. Also, consensus can always change, and if the proposed changes were truly against the current consensus, then you shouldn't have to be the only editor contesting them and performing the reverts.

Ƶ§œš¹, As adamstom97 has stated, opinions on whether or not the proposed changes are improvements is subjective. Even if adamstom97 is the only editor that contests them, it's well within a single editor's rights to revert those changes and take it to talk. Mistakes were made on both sides, but the first mistake is actually this edit. Instead of reverting a revert, a simple talk page discussion pinging the editor in question could have likely avoided further escalation.

Now that the air has been cleared a bit, it might be best if Ƶ§œš¹ breaks down their proposed changes keeping in mind that it's clear they are being contested. Decide if there's a way to trim the proposal or modify it in some other way in order to sweeten the deal. Maybe there's still a way to compromise before climbing further up the chain of WP:DR. As an uninvolved editor, I'd weigh in on the proposed content change, but I haven't seen the movie yet! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, GoneIn60. Thank you for your sober perspective. I'd hoped that Adamstom.97 would have provided a reason for undoing my edit by this point, but it's not too much trouble for me to defend my edits, which can be seen here.

In the current version, the plot summary spends the entire first paragraph (nearly a quarter of the entire summary) focusing on the movie's five-minute recap of what has happened in other movies. This information is important to understanding what's going on, but my edit tweaks it so that the information is given more efficiently and within the context of the actual plot. The only thing I've taken out is the reference to the budding romance between the two principal characters, but since it's not mentioned anywhere else in the plot summary (and seemed very minor in the scope of the movie) it seems unnecessary to mention it.

Everything else is minor wording changes that seem unobjectionable to me but I'm open to hearing what problems people might have with them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think even the mention of the romance helps add some context to the summary even if it is not explicitly followed up on, but I don't have strong feelings on that really. My big issue, as I have already clearly explained to you, is the changes you made for changes' sake. The majority of your edit was simply tweaking the wording to say the same thing in a slightly different way. I do not believe it added any value. While I would not generally revert someone for such an edit, I myself was recently called out on doing the same thing with a plot summary and have since tried to look at them with this perspective: plot summaries can always be tweaked by a user, as everyone will have slight differences on what they like and how they word things, so if an edit is not actually fixing an issue or adding value to the consensus version of the summary then we should not be encouraging the constant tweaking to fit personal preferences. So that's my perspective, once again. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like what you're saying is that you believe I've changed the wording just for the sake of changing things and that the changes aren't improvements, rather rephrasings that are equal. But, as I've said, the wording changes are improvements. For example, I added the phrase "Donning the Wasp outfit" for the scene that we first see the Wasp so that it's clear that she's wearing the Wasp suit. I changed "apprehend" to "incapacitate" since not only is that what they actually do (the police do the apprehending), but it's the fact that they have stopped Burch and his men that helps the others stop Starr, not that they are in police custody. There are also fairly objective grammar improvements; if you can't see the benefit of changing "and for their lab to be taken by Ava" to "allowing Starr to take their lab" or changing "who they plan to cure" to "whom they plan to cure" that tells me your capacity to judge the quality of minor changes like this is at odds with your confidence and willingness to make reverts using your own personal judgments.

I could go on, but I think we're at the point where you've made your perspective clear. It's time for others to weigh in and help provide a greater consensus on the matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the structural changes in the proposed edits, especially the smoothing out of the recap section are good and worth keeping. I’m not sure about the change to the naming convention. The status quo might be a better way, but I’m open to sound argumentation. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've largely been convinced of Adamstom.97's stance regarding names, with the exception of Ava Starr. I've justified this change in the breakdown below (specifically, Paragraph 3, item 4). Feel free to respond in the discussion section below. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

2402:8100:200A:497B:DD77:86F7:AE53:5F24 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Gross given wrong.

 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 (☎ • ✎) 18:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed plot summary changes

Following the failed effort at dispute resolution between myself and Adamstom.97, below is a detailed justification of my proposed edits to the plot summary, the diff for which can be seen here. This is an exhaustive paragraph-by-paragraph, edit-by-edit breakdown, with each change listed along with its merits. This will not be brief, but it is in list form to help with further discussion.

Paragraph 1

In the current version, the plot summary spends the whole paragraph (nearly a quarter of the entire summary) focusing on the movie's five-minute recap of what has happened in other movies. I changed it so that the information is given more efficiently and within the context of the actual plot (since this is, after all, a plot summary). The only thing I've taken out is the reference to the budding romance between the two principal characters, which seemed very minor in the scope of the movie.

Paragraph 2

In addition to moving some of the plot into paragraph one I:

1. changed "Hope kidnaps Lang" to "They soon after kidnap him" - this helps clarify that both characters are behind the kidnapping, not just Hope. It also uses pronouns to avoid overuse of names, which is a risk here. The phrase "soon after" helps indicate the relative timing of the two events.
2. changed "Pym and Hope work to create a stable tunnel" to " the trio work to create a stable tunnel" - all three characters work on stabilizing the tunnel, not just Hope and Pym.
3. changed "and retrieve Janet" to "and retrieve her" - Janet has already been named in that sentence. Pronouns are designed to avoid stilted overuse of the same noun and this would be a textbook case of a justified replacement.
4. changed "Hope arranges to buy" to "They arrange to buy" - Hope isn't the only one orchestrating the deal.
5. changed "from black market dealer Sonny Burch, but Burch has realized" to "from black market dealer Sonny Burch, who it turns out has realized" - Burch has already been named in the immediately previous clause and it sounds stilted to use his name repeatedly like this.
6. added "Donning the Wasp outfit" to the penultimate sentence - in the movie, this is given as a revelation that Hope wears the Wasp suit, so it seems important to the plot to add that she was wearing said suit.
7. removed the misplaced comma after "Hope fights Burch and his men off".
8. changed "Pym's portable lab" to " Pym's lab, which has been shrunk down to the size of a briefcase." - this provides emphasis on what the portable lab is, which seems like an important point of clarification given the lab's role in the story.

Paragraph 3

1. changed "Pym reluctantly visits his estranged former partner" to "The three reluctantly visit Pym's estranged former partner" - all three characters visit Foster, not just Pym.
2. removed the incorrectly placed comma before "and reveals herself to be Ava Starr."
3. changed "that caused Ava's unstable state" to "that caused her unstable state" - Ava Starr is already referred to in pronoun form in that sentence, and using her name this way makes for awkward writing.
4. changed "Foster reveals that he has been helping Ava" to "Foster reveals that he has been helping Starr" - the main characters are all referred to by their last names, so it makes sense to treat Ava Starr this way as well. I understand that the convention is to use first names when characters share a surname, but the character who shares her surname is barely in the movie.
5. changed "who they plan to cure" to "whom they plan to cure" - whom is correct here, since it is the object of the verb "cure."

Paragraph 4

1. change "Pym and Hope are able to contact Janet to "the three are able to contact Janet" - again, Lang is helping them.
2. removed the incorrectly placed comma before "but warns that they only have two hours."
3. changed "before Woo can see him breaking his house arrest" to "before Agent Woo can see him violating his house arrest" - I wanted to reinforce Woo's role and "violating" is a more applicable verb when it comes to house arrest.
4. changed "This leaves Pym and Hope to be arrested" to "This leaves Pym and van Dyne to be arrested" - this was a carryover from a name issue. I'm fine with keeping it as it was. I forgot to take this one out.
5. changed "and for their lab to be taken by Ava" to "allowing Starr to take their lab" - in addition to referring to Ava Starr by her surname, as I've justified above, this also changes passive voice to active voice, which is generally a mark of stronger writing.

Paragraph 5

1. changed "Woo" to "Agent Woo" - same reason as above.
2. changed several instances of "Ava" to "Starr" – same reason as above.
3. changed "Luis, Dave, and Kurt help apprehend Burch, so that..." to "Luis, Dave, and Kurt help incapacitate Burch and his men so that..." - Burch is not alone, so it seems important to mention his men. Also, it is the police who apprehend Burch. The important thing to what is happening at that moment is the fact that they have stopped Burch and his men, not that they are in police custody. There's also an incorrectly placed comma there.
4. changed "and Janet voluntarily gifts some of her energy" to "and she voluntarily gifts some of her energy" - this goes back to using pronouns when a character has been named already in the sentence.
5. removed an incorrectly placed comma before the above clause.

Paragraph 6

1. changed "Woo" to "Agent Woo" - same reason as above.
2. changed "Ava" to "Starr" - same reason as above.
3. changed " Pym, Hope, and Janet disintegrate" to "the other three disintegrate" - this avoids repetitive name listing.
4. since there is an ongoing dispute about it and we're talking about changes to the plot, I also favor the inclusion of the phrase "leaving Lang drifting in the quantum realm"

I'm open to discussing any of these edits. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on plot changes

Which, if any, of the above proposed edits should be incorporated into the article's plot summary? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• That question is far too broad for a single RfC and I don’t anticipate it getting any constructive feedback. A better way of posing the question would be to offer two choices, the original and your rewrite, and ask which version is preferable. Swarm ♠ 12:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though that runs the risk of entrenching my version as "the consensus version" when someone comes along later and wants to improve. Maybe I'm being paranoid. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: It has been suggested that I take this proposal to an RfC. However, given that the opposing editor has been warned for resisting these changes without providing concrete objections, I will instead give this proposal a few days more before implementing the changes in the article with the understanding that the objections were based on invalid principles, rather than opposition to the edits themselves. If anyone has objections to any part of this proposal (or believe that I should, indeed, request an RfC), feel free to express yourself. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

While that may have been the opinion of one editor at the ANI thread, I stand by my right to revert your bold change because I believe it is written worse than the current summary and in a way that is not appropriate or professional enough for Wikipedia. I ask, again, that you go ahead and open the RfC so that we can get the view of the community and not be governed by the biased opinions of just a few. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

In the event that I'm the "one editor" alluded to above, I should clarify that I haven't looked at either version (the film doesn't come out in Japan until this weekend, and I don't want to be spoiled), so that as of now I am "neutral", and on ANI I generally refrain from commenting on article content issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the conclusion made by the admin. I was just pointing out that I am still allowed to revert a change to the article and ask for it to be discussed, as far as I know. I feel strongly that the best course of action here is to have an RfC about the issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, unless one version is sourced and the other not, you are allowed request that a change be discussed first, but you need to explain why you think your version is better. Glancing at the above (again, without spoiling the movie for myself) it seems like aeusoes1 has attempted to explain why they feel their version is better, so they automatically have a better case than just reverting based on BRD. Given how much money this movie made, I would suspect that the status quo of this article is the result of a battlefield compromise during a flush of edits following the film's US release, and so is almost by definition weak, with room for improvement, so "it's the status quo; you need consensus to change it" a few months later is basically a non-argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If you feel a RfC is required, why aren't you opening it? Demanding that Ƶ§œš¹ do it in order for you to accept their edits is in direct contravention of what you were told about your behavior at ANI. Far from being the opinion of one editor, it was a formal warning that included the logging of editing restrictions. Grandpallama (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Before we start an RFC lets discuss this, Adamstom.97, what are your specific objections to the proposed text? Lets go through them line by line above where Aeusoes1 has laid them out. —AdamF in MO (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 has already indicated that he feels overwhelmed by the expectation that he respond to all ~35 items that I laid out. In light of his limited time available to volunteer, I think Adamstom.97 could still show a good faith effort with either a response to some of these items or an estimate on when he can provide a response to them all. Identifying items he doesn't object to would actually help with the RfC. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that I thought it was unreasonable to ask me to go through all of those changes, though it likely would have saved me a lot of time and trouble in the long run if I had ... even if I did give in and went through all of the changes as you have laid out I feel that we are going to end up in the same place—you thinking that your version is better, and me disagreeing with you. I have been in this situation before, and when it comes to subjective views like that there is no way to have a productive discussion. The best way to resolve the issue is with a consensus decision on which version is better, and an RfC should allow us to work that out. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: per, this edit summary, there is nothing at WP:RfC that states that edits on content relating to an RfC are prohibited, only that they might be controversial. Since the only user to oppose these edits has explicitly said he would not revert them, I see no problem in implementing them. If you have objections to the edits, please explain them. Otherwise, I will see your behavior as disruptive as Adamstom.97's. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:RFCEND. This has not concluded, nor lasted the suggested length. I am of the mindset of Adamstom that I am not in agreement with such a large plot change for the sake of doing so. I have not had the ability to look at the finer details to fully respond, but at the very least the RfC should run its course, no matter if I end up commenting further. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. You personally have had two months to assess the changes and respond. The RfC is over now: WP:RFCEND very explicitly says The question may be withdrawn by the poster" which I have done for the very reason given in the example. The community's response is obvious. There has been no valid opposition given for the changes (that I have given justifications for the changes disproves the bullshit notion that they are changes for changes's sake").

More importantly, Adamstom.97 was given a very explicit condemnation of your exact approach, which is a form of article ownership. I'm not interested in bad faith editing, which is what article ownership is. I'm not interested in Wikilawyering, which reverting based purely on a misunderstanding of RfC procedure is. I've given you plenty of chance to respond. I attempted to include you in the process of dispute resolution. Every step of the way, you have declined to participate. Reverting after all of that with no justification is bad faith editing.

I'm restoring the edits. I'm still willing to discuss these changes, but if you don't have time to justify your reverts, you should not do them. This is your final warning. Given the very thin ice that Adamstom.97 is on (again, for doing the same thing you are doing now), I would take it seriously. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I would watch your comments. I've taken back part of my comment above, because looking quickly at the end I don't really believe that anymore, but I still believe WP:RFCEND applies/d. You acted without the RFC ending, and but I don't believe point 1 with WP:SNOW (as you're suggesting) would have applied by my glancing of the discussion. That was the crux of my revert. Hence, regardless of if I continued to comment on the discussion, you should have at least waited the suggested 30 days to implement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As I already said, nothing in WP:RFCEND said that I couldn't implement the changes before the RfC ended. I suggest you reread that to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. Your reading of WP:INTIMIDATE also strains credulity. It's a three-sentence guide that is clearly about baseless warnings, not about any warning. It would be quite absurd if we weren't permitted to warn other editors if they were edit warring. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I would say it's generally considered proper etiquette to avoid editing the material being discussed in a currently-active RfC. The language at Wp:RFC#Suggestions for responding may be seem like soft, cautionary recommendations in this regard, but I would suggest taking them seriously and not flirt with crossing that line. The best approach is to avoid any distractions until the RfC is resolved.

At the heart of the matter here is that there really hasn't been any third-party input, despite the RfC attempt. As Swarm pointed out above, the RfC description (and for any new one that follows) could use some clarification that narrows the choices for participants. Less is more that will generate more feedback. I would weigh in on the discussion, but unfortunately I haven't seen the film yet. In defense of Aeusoes1, it is a reasonable expectation that those who object to the changes should provide an adequate explanation once discussion has been initiated. A couple weeks to a month is more than enough time to provide one. If you need more than that, I suggest allowing the changes to go through while you continue to review it. Stopping the proposed changes on the request they are reviewed first only buys you so much time, and once you've exhausted that, the burden of gaining consensus begins to shift to the opposer(s). --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• A shorter lead like Aeuscoes seems better, the final bloc from Favrefan looks better, the rest seem a wash. I'd also think some expansion on the ending would be good - to mention the Infinity War in text, and to mention that Lang is left stranded. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the final bloc from Favrefan"? Favrefan hasn't contributed anything to the discussion, and "final bloc" is too vague for me to understand what you're saying. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@SassyCollins: Per the removal of the last phrase in this edit, I'm not sure most people agree with your assessment of whether we know Lang has been left in the quantum realm. By all indications, he is stuck there. Saying that he's been left drifting there seems to be a compromise between those who want to say that he's "stuck" there and those who deny this as a form of OR analysis. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: First of all, feel free to revert. Because of the addition of "...while Lang is in the QR doing this..." the "...Lang is left drifting in the QR..." was removed (that he's drifting there is implied). The addition was made due to the fact that Lang has been able to get out of the QR before. Stating that he is now 'stuck' there because he received no answer to his calls seems like an oxymoron of sorts. Anyway, stating that while Lang is in QR while other three (outside) disintegrate, already implies he is still drifting there. SassyCollins (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Post credits scene

theis a scene at the very end of the credits showing a quiet and empty new york then shows the giant ant playing the drums, s there this should be added onto the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.115.194.122 (talk • contribs)

Doesn't add anything to the readers knowledge of the film. It's a gag scene, which should not be noted per WP:FILMPLOT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Specifically: The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail. The post-credits sequence would be a textbook example of that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Footnote

It's not clear that there should be a footnote in the plot section connecting it to the plot of Avengers: Infinity War - quite probably it could be restructured to provide the same information in complete sentences without footnotes. In fact, that might be the better way, since footnotes are generally used for non-essential information, and knowing what happens in Infinity War is essential to understanding why on earth these characters turn into dust. Still, if a footnote must be used, a complete sentence (such as "This is a ramification of events in Avengers: Infinity War") reads better than a sentence fragment (such as "Due to events in Avengers: Infinity War"). Airbornemihir (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not a fact. Please allow the discussion to take place rather than trying to enforce your preferred version of the article. The footnote is used because this film makes no mention of Infinity War and so adding such a description to the plot summary without identifying it as being from outside of the actual plot and providing a source for it would be extremely inappropriate. With that in mind, you are of course welcome to suggest alternative wording. However, your suggestion does not fix the issue that you say it does (since it is also not a complete sentence) and makes the information we are providing less precise with no explanation. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is attempting strictly factual claims here. Airbornemihir does bring up two good points. If we can avoid footnotes, that will make for better writing. If we are going to have a footnote, the suggested sentence is, indeed, a complete sentence and the current wording is a fragment.

If changing "due to" to "this is a ramification of" makes it less precise (and I don't see how), what about "This is due to..."? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine as is, but suggested "This is due to..." also okay. SassyCollins (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, folks. I'm realising another thing wrong with the "due to the ending of" wording is that it could mean different things in-universe and out-of-universe, and the sentence construction strongly suggests the latter. Just for clarity, let me offer an example: between the two sentences, "Due to the ending of The Final Problem, James Watson had to reconcile to life without Holmes" and "Due to the ending of The Final Problem, Arthur Conan Doyle's publishers had to find new mystery fiction authors", the latter reads better, because the phrase suggests out-of-universe consequences. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what the out-of-universe interpretation would be. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The whole point of this is the in-universe consequences, so I'm not exactly sure what the issue is now. My biggest issues to begin with here was that a unilateral decision was made (but in an apparent attempt to avoid discussion rather than a standard WP:BEBOLD kind of way) and that you removed the fact that it was due to the end of Infinity War without explanation, which seemed like randomly making the note less precise. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

So where can we find a consensus? As Aeusoes1 said above, some part of this discussion is subjective, although it's objectively true that removing the reference to "the ending" cuts precision. I'm thinking, though, that the additional precision does not add anything to the prose quality - for the some reason we wouldn't refer to "the middle of Age of Ultron" or "the beginning of The Winter Soldier." @Adamstom.97: I'm willing to admit my edit may have appeared random without the justification for complete sentences - and you have a point about Bold - but can you find a phrasing which is sufficiently precise and yet doesn't confuse by pointing out-of-universe (hopefully, a complete sentence)? Thanks, Airbornemihir (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with "This is due to the ending of Avengers: Infinity War (2018)"? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a fine alternative, and I don't really think there is a need to make much more of a deal out of this discussion at this point tbh. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the note needs adjusting. There isn't anything wrong with "Due to the ending of Infinity War". The note to me, in relation to this film's plot, reads as if it was formatted like this: "While Lang is in the quantum realm doing this, the other three disintegrate (due to the ending of Avengers: Infinity War)." So when viewed like that, no adjustment is needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I edited the footnote, trying to be at least as precise as before. Feel free to continue editing. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir: Please stop editing the contents of the footnote while we are discussing. You can't keep changing it to what you want it to be while other editors are presenting other arguments for it to stay as is or something that wasn't even what you changed it to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Now regarding that change, we can't be adding in-universe information that is not shown in this film. We have to keep it as out-of universe as possible, and "Due to the ending of Infinity War" does that. That allows readers to then move to the Infinity War page, where they can get the info on the ending. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir: do you have a problem with "This is due to the ending of Avengers: Infinity War (2018)"? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: Since you asked, yes. I have taken some effort above to explain why the "due to the ending" phrasing is terrible, even when it is part of a complete sentence. That's all I've got. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You mean the whole "out-of-universe" interpretation thing? That makes no sense to me. If that's all you've got, I'm not convinced. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Entrapment in the Quantum Realm

I think there have been multiple editors - including me - trying to get the Plot section to say that Scott Lang was trapped in the Quantum Realm. However, after watching the trailer [7] for the next Avengers film, I think it's clear that the editors who believed he would make his own way out, as he did in Ant-Man, were right. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter. We can't adjust the plot here for the events that are revealed in other films. For this film, we only see him floating there, with no indication if he is trapped or not. Hence the current article wording works/is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of critical reception section

The Metacritic rating implies the reviews for this were largely mixed, and yet our summary appears to consist exclusively of "neutral at worst" criticism -- what gives? Were these "neutral; can't say I hate it" reviews just the vast majority of the critical reception? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here, but in response to this, Triiiple clearly said that he was reverting your edit due to WP:OR, since you added content that is not in the body of the article. If you think there is a better way to summarise the section, you can provide your preferred version here without the unsourced statements. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "OR" clearly referred to my accidental restoration of the "trapped" edit, not what I actually intended to do, so the "explanation" was invalid; and what I am saying here is perfectly clear, so please actually respond to what I wrote rather that looking around for mud to sling at me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC) No, Triiiple directly addressed your "trapped" change and also had explanations for your lead edit (including noting the typo you added to the lead which in no way can reference the "trapped" edit since there was no typo there), so it is your explanation that is "invalid". And I have no idea what our summary appears to consist exclusively of "neutral at worst" criticism -- what gives? Were these "neutral; can't say I hate it" reviews just the vast majority of the critical reception is supposed to mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Triiiple directly addressed your "trapped" change ... the typo you added to the lead (emphasis added) Are you sincerely accusing me of sockpuppetry, or are you just trying to get under my skin by ignoring my repeated requests that you focus on content? It was I who first addressed that misprint when I re-reverted TT's otherwise unexplained revert of IP1 (yeah, it's perhaps a better structured sentence[8]), an I was the one who fixed it before being reverted by TN; and IP2's edit was accidentally restored in my revert. Neither IP was me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC) ...so are you seriously telling me that you did not make this edit? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC) You mean the edit clearly marked as a revert back to the version edited by IP1? Are you going to stop this nonsense, or are you just here to troll me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC) the edit clearly marked as a revert back to the version edited by IP1? ... by you (facepalm). - adamstom97 (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Even after the collapsed discussion above, it is still unclear to me what you are asking in your initial comment here. If you want to discuss this, could you re-word your question to clarify? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record my OR comment was in reference to the story and villain receiving criticism, which was not cited in any of the presented reviews. I did however add a common complaint that is cited the reviews. BTW, the Metacritc rating, implies "generally favorable reviews".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure that’s a specific enough complaint and the wording seems off. Is the complain there were too many subplots, the plots weren’t good enough, etc.? Specific praise or criticism is what’s most important, and we can’t synthesize different criticisms into one. Toa Nidhiki05 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: The Post called them "filler", and The Globe said there were too many. But I see your point about WP:SYN. Hows this

The film grossed over $622 million worldwide and received praise for its levity, humor, and performances, particularly those of Rudd and Lilly, but was criticized for its "lack of stakes".

—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know, that element of the film also received praise - this one argues in favor of it and it’s noted in the RT consensus, after all. A ton of searches note it as a positive - just google “ant man and the wasp low-stakes”. I’m frankly not convinced we need anything there, given the review section doesn’t mention much. There doesn’t seem to be a single driving criticism of the film, or rather a number of widespread critiques - just some areas a few reviewers took issue with that also received praise from other people. Idk. I can be convinced but that’s an issue for me. Toa Nidhiki05 16:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Toa Nidhiki05: Umm ... where has it been discussed before? I searched this page and the archive for "crit-", "recep-", "revi-", and found nothing; were you just looking for an excuse to revert me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References

CHANGE OF TITLE CASE

Since we are going by how the titles are presented by Marvel Studios (see: capitalization of "from" in the Spider-Man: Far From Home title, the "the" in Ant-Man and The Wasp should be fixed to represent how it appeared in the social accounts and official marketing.

• Apart from where all CAPS on the official site the page title an text is "Ant-Man and the Wasp". KylieTastic (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggested sources for "Future" section

• Rudd's suggestion of a campaign: [9]
• Lilly on secrecy: [10]. Anima Sola (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)