Thread:Uskok/@comment-26838855-20190426235345

I see you're putting character ages as their 2023 age rather than current (April 2019) age. Is that what we're doing now? If so:
 * 1) Is this just for Endgame characters? Or for all film characters? Or for all characters?
 * 2) Does it really make sense to, for example, have Peter Parker say "21-22 (biologically 16) "? While Steve Rogers lived all those 66 years he was frozen, so his body has been alive for 100 years, just he's only in his biological 30s, this is different. These people did not have living bodies for those 5 years, so Peter's body has only been alive for 16.6 total years and is biologically 16.6, the only way he can be considered 21-22 is simply by "date currently minus date of birth". It's essentially like they jumped forwards 5 years. If the agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. had stayed in 2091, that wouldn't make, for example, Simmons "102-103 (biologically 29) ", just 29, because her body didn't live those missing 74 years. But I also don't feel it's right to just say "16" because it will cause constant people misunderstanding and editing, so I would suggest "16 (missed 5 years of ageing)" or "16 (deceased for 5 years) " or something better than that, those aren't great examples. Something that makes clear it shouldn't say 21-22. Obviously this applies beyond Peter Parker, just giving an example.
 * 3) Would this mean that essentially, no one of whichever group we're going with (just Endgame characters, just film characters, everyone, whatever the answer is to Question 1) is listed by their 2023 age from now until 2023, when we revert to "age today"? Or are we just generally changing the rule to "age at the furthest point in the present(ish) MCU timeline", whatever that may be? Or "age at last appearance" like status? 