# Talk:Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Like I’ve stated before Ross is not an enemy of the Avengers. The UN did the sokovia accords, he was doing his job. Was he being dick? Yeah, but never an enemy to the Avengers. User:MarioProtIV said “That was only Sam facing Ross in BNW and he doesn’t count for his Civil War stuff.” Like really comparing him to Ultron or Thanos? I don’t think so. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ziggy Coltrane: That is a subjective rationale. Enemies does not necessarily mean they are the Big Bads, rather, ones who are major opponents to the team in universe. Ross was a direct enemy to one faction of the Avengers in Civil War, that is why he is listed, not because of him becoming Red Hulk and fighting Sam in Brave New World, which is before Sam restarts the Avengers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Again he was a dick to Cap’s side of the Avengers, that doesn’t really mean he belongs on the list. Yes, your explanation of enemies is a good one. Zemo, for example he said it himself that he couldn’t fight the Avengers because men stronger than him have I tried, but if he can get them to fight each other. Ross wasn’t scheming against the Avengers, the UN had a law and he just told them what the consequences would be. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Except Ross's own actions came with his view of superheroes needing to be kept in check due to his personal history with them. Ross's actions in enforcing the Accords directly resulted in the Avengers Civil War alongside Zemo's actions. Saying he was "a dick" to one faction of the team is not a sufficient rationale to justify removal. Being an enemy does not require "scheming", it means being at odds and a rival. Your content removal has been contested by various editors and is unlikely to be acted upon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Would you add Quicksilver and Wanda to that list since they enemies for the first half of Ultron? Ross is no way in the same category as those listed, he was doing his job.Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Those are different circumstances because they later joined the Avengers and were reformed. Ross has remained an antagonist figure, even if he is not a primary villain. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Wanda held a town captive (before she even had the darkhold). Ross is not in the same category as those villains listed. At the very least, he’s like Wanda who’s an anti-hero. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
This is WP:NOTAFORUM to discuss your opinion of character classifications. Multiple editors disagree with your content removal. That is not going to change regardless of any way you try to spin this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
It’s not my opinion that’s what they are. He’s never been a full blown villain compared to those listed. Having him listed in the same section with Loki, ultron, and thanos is not the same. The editors who reverted, never gave their reason. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
You are arguing semantics about what an antagonist and enemy are. In the context of the fictional events, multiple editors disagree with your assertions. Just because you believe something does not make it fact. The "enemies" parameter is not reserved for the main villains of a media property. Ross has still been an enemy to the Avengers by opposing the team and their very existence as shown in Civil War. You can debate this all you want but Ross will not be removed from the infobox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: MOS:VAR applies. The citation templates have always used |newspaper or |publisher where applicable and that is what is recommended to use at {{Cite news}}. This article has gone through a lot of edits recently and ProveIt overlooks that, but that does not mean they are not correct parameters to use. Every time I edit this article and new citations are added, I ensure they are consistently formatted. All MCU articles typically follow suit in formatting these cites this way, so I'm not sure why you specifically have a problem with me rectifying it here when that is the longstanding formatting for this article. I don't see much point in edit warring over citation formatting of all things. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 15:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Pinging again since you have yet to respond and discuss constructively. I do not appreciate you accusing me of wikilawyering. This article has for the lo longest time formatted these citations this way. Pinging other regular contributors @InfiniteNexus, @Adamstom.97, @Favre1fan93, @Facu-el Millo, @ZooBlazer, @BarntToust. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Really not something to be edit warring over. |newspaper= and |work= are aliases of one another so there is no practical difference, though |newspaper= is more specific when used with {{Cite news}}. Isn't there a bot that has been making changes along this lines at various articles? - adamstom97 (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Yup. Usually the Citation bot pops in and makes these parameter adjustments because ProveIt overlooks them. This is a standard procedure but I try to get ahead of the bots by formatting them all to be consistent myself. This typically has never been contested until now, so I am not sure why Gonnym has taken issue with this. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy pinging @Smith609 as operator of WP:CITEBOT. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 18:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Trailblazer101 for the ping. In concurrence with Adamstom here; of all things, why wage an edit war over that? These parameters equate. In other terms, this would be as trivial as disputing if color:red versus color:#ff0000 should be used to color in some text. For a defined newspaper like The Times or ABC, the more technical answer could be |newspaper= — otherwise, but in concurrence with Trail, |work= is the more broad parameter.
Tying into that, |work= works most generally yet what has been done has, as Mister Blaze noted in an edit summary, worked for a good long while before "The Gonnym Reforms". WP:CITEVAR offers these words:
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change BarntToust 19:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I should also like to put into consideration what can be learned from a recent edit about another topic area I frequent that has some good rationale for why Bloomberg News ought to be not using a |publisher= parameter. User:Rhain's rationale in the linked edit summary is rather helpful. BarntToust 19:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
worked for a good long while before "The Gonnym Reforms" can you show me where exactly I've done my reforms? Or was that a baseless personal attack that I should report? Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
14 years of experience editing Wikipedia, and all you have to show for it is pissy confrontationalism and a scarce ability to recognize slight humor? I don't know what's gotten into you, friend, but I think it's time for WALKIES.
I'm only stridefully referring to this attempt at reforming the citation style as "reforms", as were they some grand ordeal, because you've made it into an edit war, which as Adamstom.97 said, and I agree, is rather a pointless battle to be fighting on your end. BarntToust 18:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh my, not everything is a personal attack. Barnt just uses a specific type of language for communication some deem to be sarcastic. They do not mean any ill intent from my experiences contributing with them. This is the internet after all, so not everything can be conveyed as intended... No need to be so hasty. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 00:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, among my specific type of language I tend to assign certain key ideas phrases I deal with to make them easier for my mind to maintain understanding. For example, search "the Japan question" across WikiTalk and you'll see me using that term across a content dispute about Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film), to represent the aching question if Japan qualified as a country of origin for the film. I mean no offense with my idiosyncrasies. BarntToust 01:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry I missed your ping here. To argue that MOS:VAR applies, please show me that the initial edits on this page used your preferred style. Additionaly, I disagree even that VAR has anything to do with this as we aren't changing a citation style. As I stated in my edit summary, changing |work= to anything doesn't add value as it doesn't change anything at all. However, it does affect the editing experience negativly, as it then requires each and every subsequent edit using ProveIt (and possibly other tools) to be manually re-formatted. That alone is enough for this edit to be opposed and the WP:STATUSQUO which was the page at this edit before the bold edit called "Ref work". Gonnym (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Not taking either side in this, but in general, if a gadget isn't compatible with an established method of writing articles, it's the gadget that needs to be fixed, not the articles. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 19:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I chose to revert my revert because while using the established citation style is something established across the MCU project, I don't know when this article first broke from that, then the time passed until Trail remedied that break and then the Gonnym reforms took place. I don't have all the facts so I'm tapping out and playing it safe. BarntToust 21:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Look, everyone, just stop. This WP:LAME edit war over such a trivial matter has now triggered everybody's watchlists 18 times. Regardless of who is right or wrong, back-and-forth reverting is disruptive and not constructive. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
There is still no need to force changes to standard formatting accepted on multiple articles just because you personally dislike it, Gonnym. I know Gonnym and I tend not to see eye-to-eye on things, but this should be beyond that and any personal preferences. ProveIt tends to change these, yes, but that does not mean it is inferior to change them back. If you don't like that that requires more manual work, than you don't have to act upon it. The Citation bot makes these manual changes to the parameters upon request, so it is not like this is exclusively a tedious endeavor. Most MCU articles use these parameters, and this should remain consistent with those ones. As for status quo arguments, in recent months, ProveIt has been used on this article, thus swapping the parameters for the work one. I was merely restoring what should have been an uncontroversial change, as it has typically been for years. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 22:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I also want to echo what Ahecht said, in that this is an issue to discuss with the ProveIt operators, not for us to edit war over on a single article. Also, no one is required to use any of these gadgets, they are just here to assist in syntax cleanup. This has been blown way out of proportion. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 23:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that as of this revision dated 08:38, August 5, 2024 and this one dated 04:02, June 12, 2024, the "newspaper" parameter was in use. That changed when Gonnym altered them in this diff dated 08:27, January 19, 2025, in what was likely a ProveIt-assisted edit. If anything, the earlier formatting from before January was the long-standing status quo before the changes earlier this year. Refusing to put in a little extra work to harmonize the formatting you changed in the first place is not a valid excuse to justify your edit war over this. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 23:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
this was the research I was hoping to find done. Thank you for taking on the revision scouring, Trail! BarntToust 01:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I have boldly restored the citation formatting to use the newspaper and publisher parameters (given a very rough, slim agreement here) and I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:ProveIt#Issues in forcing "work" parameter over "newspaper" and "publisher", should anyone be interested in participating there. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Mister Fantastic has been listed as the leader of Avengers and has also been included in the team roster as per the Avengers: Doomsday film and Matt Shakman's comments. It's still not clear if he'll be leader of Avengers or he'll only lead them for a mission without joining them. It can possibly be misinformation as the film isn't released yet. Even if the information is correct, isn't it too soon to add that in the article? Shouldn't we wait till the release of film before adding "in universe" information regarding it? 103.251.19.206 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I would support removing it here & at Draft talk:Reed Richards (Marvel Cinematic Universe); @Adamstom.97 has already removed it from the Doomsday article. @(a)nnihilation97 added it using this Forbes source which directly speculates on who is in the Avengers/leading the team, however, that runs into WP:FORBESCON. I replaced the Forbes article with the Variety article it quoted. That article states: "Reed was the most challenging role to cast. 'He goes from being the nerdy scientist who’s locked away in the lab, to the husband and the father who'd do anything to protect his family, to the guy who’s leading the Avengers,' Shakman says. 'I realized that the version we were building had to have all of those elements.'" Nothing else in the Variety article references the Avengers leadership so I don't think you can definitively give an end date for Wilson & a start date Richards as the team leader just based on that quote. It mostly seems like WP:SPECULATION that has a weak source trying to justify it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I interpreted this as a reference to the comics / character in-general. If Reed becomes the official leader of the Avengers in Doomsday or Secret Wars, I doubt Marvel would want to talk about that now. Maybe he will and Shakman accidentally revealed that early, but we can't know that for sure. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Those were my thoughts exactly. I think Shakman's wording is still partially ambiguous and we should not run with it as a definitive fact when it can be interpreted another way. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 22:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Looks like Pascal has put this matter to rest, clarifying in an Entertainment Weekly interview: "Matt was talking about a Reed Richards that, within the comics of the Avengers, the Fantastic Four are brought into the Avengers and Reed is commissioned to lead a mission, but that is different than what we're doing," the actor says. "So I think what Matt has said about Reed and the comic has been taken out of context." Just goes to show that we can't always take everything at face value, even from the trades. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 00:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

In Age of Ultron, only Wanda became an Avenger after Clint told her she would be by walking out the door and fighting. If Pietro does become an Avenger, it's offscreen and unconfirmed. BlackandWhitePandas (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe Pietro is listed because he did help in the fight against Ultron and sacrificed himself to save Clint. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 22:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
No, he was never an avenger. Helping them for a few minutes does not mean they automatically become a member. If that were the case, then every single person in End Game would be listed as a "member". Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
@BlackandWhitePandas, @Gonnym, This issue was solved in discussion, Pietro Maximoff to the roster. He has been included as member in Dan Abnett's Avengers: Everybody Wants To Rule The World (2015; tie-in of Avengers: Age of Ultron) and later in Guidebook to the Marvel Cinematic Universe - Avengers: Age of Ultron (2016). 103.251.19.137 (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I was unaware of that discussion. As for those comics, they are not listed at Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics and I believe Rule the World is non-canon, while the Guidebook is just like any other guidebook released over the years from Marvel as a whole but does not appear to have any direct involved from Marvel Studios. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 05:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Trailblazer101, so he's not official member of Avengers? If not then he needs to be listed among other characters. 103.251.19.137 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Correct. I have added the mention where relevant. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 06:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't see anything being "solved" in that discussion. Also, in this case, we don't need outside material to help bridge any missing information. At no time whatsoever on screen before he died was he initiated as member. Unless the source says that Pietro was posthumously added to the team. Did those sources say that? Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)