Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki talk:Playground

This is the general discussion page for the wiki! New founders should leave a nice welcome message and encourage new visitors and editors to leave a note to get the conversation started.

Disabling Visual Mode
{{archive Given the amount of glitches, inconsistencies, and extra work for admins and users alike that the Visual Editor Mode, also called the Rich Text Editor or RTE is causing lately, it has been proposed to "forbid" its use in the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki, in order to improve the quality of each and every edit.
 * result= Proposal already applied
 * discussion=

Most of us have it turned off (see Special:Preferences, editing tab), but there a few contributors that still use it, and they are occasionally, and quite unintentionally, creating a mess in the codes of pages, even deleting them entirely, as with Coulson's article earlier today.

There are many reasons the visual mode is messing with this wiki, just to mention a few...
 * Entire pages are unintentionally deleted when making even minor edits, just as with the Coulson example listed above.
 * Galleries are messed up, removing literally hundreds of images for trying to add one or two images, leaving to the people who notice the removal to fix it.
 * It displays things as they are styled on the wiki. One example of this is the use of unneeded piped links, presented as Iron Man, with the space written as "& nbsp;", unnecessarily expanding the coding size of a page, which results on making some pages impractical for users with slow internet connections, or increasing the amount of datastream that users accessing from mobile devices have to pay to their companies.
 * Infobox templates automatically disable the source mode if Visual Mode is used, in order to add the template. However, for source mode users, the new template is seen as a single line, making it extra difficult to see if there are any missing or misplaced fields. It happens the same when a new field is added to an existing template
 * One of the things that are difficult to locate is the frequent replacement of ordinary wikilinks with an HTML URL link to a page. The RTE likes to do this: S.H.I.E.L.D. when it should be S.H.I.E.L.D. It is not done every time, but it is done usually enough to be a concern, as the whole point of a wiki is the manipulation of relational links, and its tools (such as the Special:WhatLinksHere/ page only work for internal links, not external links.

For all those reasons above, and given that at least 3 of the current 5 administrators already support this proposal, I suggest that editing this wiki should be mandatory to be done using source mode (the mode used by a vast majority of users), and tell the few contributors that still use Visual Mode (that can be seen in the Recent Changes page) to disable the Visual Mode and start using Source Mode.

Leave your comments on the section below, as given the importance (and emergency before the premiere of Daredevil), a voting should only be applied in case a reasonable number of contributors disagree with this proposal by providing reasons to keep the Visual Mode.Shabook (talk) 21:35, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Comments
I agree strongly with this proposal. I have fixed some quotes that I believe were miscoded as a result of this (though the user never responded, so I can't be sure). I myself did not take into account the extra data some of the coding takes, though it makes sense. I think making source mode mandatory is the smartest move for our wiki, especially since "business is about to boom", as one might say.~Silverstream (talk) 23:15, April 6, 2015 (UTC)Silverstream

I agreeColuanprime (talk) 00:20, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

I also agree, usually I ignore the Visual Editor anyway and use Source Mode. Babyrockhopper (talk) 00:25, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

I concur. I only use visual for something minor, like adding a comma or changing spelling; everything else, I use source. When I don't, I make major mistakes, like categories appear in weird places. The upcoming work will be tremendous in the next few weeks; with real life in the way, I don't have a lot of time to correct visual mode mistakes, when there are biographies, histories to write, research to verify, etc...Bratpack (talk) 00:38, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I just tried it with my profile and it works great. AKA S.I.H (talk) 00:46, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, it is very easy to just put a picture or do something with the regular editor. --HailHydra17 (talk) 00:48, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * if it is so easy, why does it go wrong so many times? Multiple mistakes that happen when you use visual mode have happened on your Blogpost (the link one almost everytime). You would not have that when using Source.TomasDerksen (talk) 01:12, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * We should disable the Visual Mode at once. We've had too many problems with it.--UskokHail HYDRA! 08:51, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

I highly prefer the Source Mode to the Visual Mode. The Visual Mode is so confusing and difficult for me to use. When I use one of the computers at my local library or at my university's library, the Source Mode is the only mode that shows up when I go in to edit something. There's no option to switch over to Visual. I would hate to see the Source Mode be done away. I think it would make editing articles and pictures a little more difficult for us users if we're only allowed to edit using the Visual Mode. --Professor Ambrius (talk) 14:27, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats why we talk about it the other way aroundTomasDerksen (talk) 15:00, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Source mode is definitely the better of the two but i can see the argument for having visual mode available for small edits (grammar spelling) especially for those who are just anonymous wiki contributors and may be confused by it. BamMitch (talk) 14:55, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

@Uskok, for the research I've done in other wikias that have had exactly this discussion regarding visual mode, though it is often found to be extremely disruptive, the only ones who can entirely disable it are the Wikia Staff, and they are extremely hard to convince regarding this subject. The TARDIS Wiki has had a long and very well researched discussion regarding this topic here, and the Megami Tensei Wiki has compiled how other wikis discussed it and failed to convince the wiki staff from disabling it, as seen in their own discussion here. As they suggested, the best option for us seems to be discourage the Visual Mode, and make it mandatory for every regular editor to use the Source Mode. Shabook (talk) 18:18, April 7, 2015 (UTC) @TomasDerksen, it is not hard at all to know who uses Visual Mode, their edits appear marked as such in the Recent Changes page, that's how I realized they were the ones causing all the article and gallery deletions. Shabook (talk) 22:30, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we change the Welcome message, then?--UskokHail HYDRA! 18:29, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * And put a punishment on it, all though that might be hard to figure our.TomasDerksen (talk) 18:31, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * @Uskok, a change in the Welcome Message, a highlighted forum thread to inform of the change to all visitors and regular editors, and messages for current editors that use the Visual Mode to make them change to Source Mode.
 * Really? I am looking at that page now, and after you said so I do indeed notice the (visualeditor), but never noticed that before

I also agree with this proposal. Adding quotes, galleries, links etc. is much easier in Source Mode. Dr.Who1997HAIL HYDRA! (◣‿◢) 10:05, April 8, 2015 (UTC)

Looks like almost everyone agrees with this, we'll make it official before Daredevil premieres. Shabook (talk) 20:23, April 9, 2015 (UTC)


 * It can't be disabled, and many contributors won't know about this, and will use it just the same. NoahR9 (talk) 07:21, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * They will be informed.--UskokHail HYDRA! 07:26, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * How? Also, if you use the ?action=edit pages visual, it doesn't say in the Recent Changes. All those above "stuff-ups" have never happened on my two Visual wikis. NoahR9 (talk) 00:28, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * Is your only purpose to circumvent this community decission? Shabook (talk) 00:36, April 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. I'm just informing Shabook... NoahR9 (talk) 00:43, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

}}

Userboxes
I was thinking about making userboxes and a page for those userboxes on the MCU Wiki. Userboxes are templates you add to your userpage for things you like.

This is an example of what a possible userbox on the MCU Wiki might look like. Its a bit of both like watching and liking the subject in question. Byzantinefire - There are no strings on me (talk ) 15:56, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * I dont really see the use of it personaly, but people might like to have them, so I am fine with them
 * You forgot to sign your post sig Tomas. Byzantinefire - There are no strings on me

(talk ) 21:39, June 10,2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea, so why not. Dr.Who1997To Afterlife 11:49, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea! I would definitely use them! Bridgetterocks   My talk!!!  21:32, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not? Other Wikias have similar userboxes too.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 17:03, July 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * I like userboxes, but I would prefer them to have a consistent design instead of being totally different like the ones at the examples. The ones from Wikipedia are fine to use as template.--Shabook (talk) 18:16, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Editing Events
{{archive I had an idea for a wiki event to help get the wiki ready for the new content that will be added. Right now there seems to be a lull in new MCU content, so it seems like it would be a good time to improve the wiki. On that front I had the following idea:
 * result= Creation of the Weekly Editing Events
 * discussion=

Take a few separate weeks and "promote them" as editing event weeks. But, there would be the idea that everyone would focus on a particular type of editing. For example:

Week 1: Say no-one is allowed (not sure about this part but it is just an idea to direct editors) to make grammer edits or add pictures. Instead only edits that fill in stubs, create new articles, and expand old articles are allowed. In short, to fill in the gaps of the wiki.

Week 2: Say no-one is allowed to make any content edits, instead they must work on adding in missing pictures, organizing galleries, replacing low quality images, sourcing and licensing images, and putting images in all relevant galleries.

Week 3: Say no-one is allowed to add new content (obviously we'd want this way after Ant-man, perhaps late august). Instead everyone needs to review articles and fix grammatical mistakes and rewrite poorly written content. In short, polish up the written content of the wiki.

This is just a draft of a proposal but it seems like something that could help the wiki especially since it seems like we currently have a solid group of steady users who all want to help and are familiar with how the wiki works. Thoughts? Coluanprime (talk) 20:23, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

Comments
Mmmh, perhaps something like that could work by adding an Awards System.--Shabook (talk) 10:21, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it if the weeks do not happen consecutively. If one week a month is chosen for the proposal, i would agree; three weeks in a row, to me, with a restrictive editing policy might discourage new or casual editors...Bratpack (talk) 10:30, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * The "restriction" part cannot work. We must encourage and reward certain edits, without hampering users who don't like to add images to articles, or to write long sections... In addition to the awards, naybe sets of temporary badges could help for that.--Shabook (talk) 10:35, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bratpack and Shabook, that it should not be consecutive or restrictive. For me, I do not do major edits. I enjoy cleaning up the wiki in usage of grammar. Sometimes I will do larger edits, but mostly not. So the thought of two weeks without being able to do that does not really sound good to me. Encourage the specific edits, certainly. But don't limit things to just those edits. 1stAvenger (talk) 11:47, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

The restriction part was something I wasn't sure about. @Bratpack, The weeks wouldn't be consecutive. @Shabook the awards system/badges things would be cool.Coluanprime (talk) 15:30, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe only those that want to participate should. I'm also not a huge fan of restricting people when they could be helping the wiki. Babyrockhopper (talk) 17:01, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * The point though is to try and direct everyone to one particular type of editing for the overall good of the wiki.Coluanprime (talk) 17:55, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before, nobody can "force" people to make certain edits, or "forbid" them to make others. We all understand the good intentions behind this proposal, and that's the reason we are discussing it. Given the opinions, I think the best way to go is to choose a week, and encourage users to edit certain parts while the rest of the wiki still works as usual, and at the end of said week, the users that helped the wiki in those proposed areas would receive an award on their user page.--Shabook (talk) 18:00, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Coluanprime (talk) 22:13, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User Shabook. It does seem unfair to restrict Users from certain edits. An important detail that must be taken into consideration is that some Users may not have stable access to the Internet or they may only have a certain amount of time they can be on-line. There have been time when I myself have only had time to add 1 picture to this Wiki and place it in the appropriate galleries or add just one small piece of new content to a page. Another thing to take into account is that for the Users who have to the ability to spend large amounts of time on-line, they're able to find new content relating to the films and TV shows long before other users who do not have that ability to go on-line when ever they wish but have to wait till they're able to. By the time those Users come across the new content and go to add to the corresponding Wiki page, the content has already been added by the User who has the more constant access to the Internet. Now, I do agree with your view that there are a number of areas on this Wiki that can greatly benefit from a clean up and think that the proposal Shabook made, "ecourage users to edit certain parts while the rest of the wiki still works as usual, and at the end of said week, the users that helped the wiki in those proposed areas would receive an award on their user page," would be the best way to carry it out. --Professor Ambrius (talk) 19:44, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Shabook's 18:00 UTC comment; it gives positive reinforcement to those who participate, but does not "force" or "punish" those who do not, while helping the wiki as Coluanprime desires...Bratpack (talk) 01:31, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's hope this doesn't turn into hot air, just like the Featured articles.--Shabook (talk) 13:54, July 2, 2015 (UTC)
 * Check the new Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki:Weekly Editing Events policy!--Shabook (talk) 20:28, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

}}

Admin Proposal
This proposal rose out of a discussion between Shabook and me over profanity in the comments section. Shabook said that dealing with comments was getting annoying and I suggested that we should add users who would function as moderators for comment sections. Other wikis, such as the DC and Marvel Comics Databases and Ben 10 Planet, have a variety of "empowered" users who aren't admins but have more powers than the average users. They could get rid of vandalism, edit comments, be "helpers" (familiar with code) who help new users. Also other wikis have an admin blog to help make announcements and rules. We could also move current admins to positions where they might be better suited.

On obstacle to doing this is that our only bureaucrat (New Captain) is inactive and we would need a new one which would involve dealing with Wikia staff. Ultimately though, having a discussion and forming a more organized wiki leadership would help us with the wiki.

Feel free to suggest your own ideas for how the wiki should be run!

Here is an example of what the wiki leadership system could look like: Admins: Users with expanded powers, if they are inactive for more than 60 days, they would become regular users again. Comment Moderators: People with the ability to edit comments and moderate the comment sections (mainly removing profanity and spam) Vandalism Unit: A few users who would have roll-back abilities and would get rid of useless edits. Teachers: Users who know code and are familiar with the rules of the wiki and are able to help new (and old) users with more time and detail than admins might be able too.

Thoughts? This will be left up for a few weeks, then a more organized plan will be made and voted upon. If the plan is accepted, then nominations will be accepted to fill the new positions and users will vote on who to accept. Coluanprime (talk) 20:02, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Comments
I agree with many things. If admins or bureacrats are not active in 60 days, or even if they are not active enough for a wiki like this they should give up their admin rights. It is not a post held for life, admins must demonstrate they are worthy of being admins. As for the system, ideally is good, but in practice... If there are current admins that have to be constantly reminded of the policies they didn't even bother about reading, how can we expect there are enough regular users that deserve those responsabilities?--Shabook (talk) 20:29, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody else has any opinion regarding this?--Shabook (talk) 07:15, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

I have read this, but not reacted, when the post was placed. I feel like having users with powers is usefull.TomasDerksen (talk) 14:01, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tomas. It would make this Wiki better organized.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 15:32, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Adoption
{{archive After thinking very much about the future of the wiki and the paths we should follow to achieve, how the Marvel Cinematic Universe and, in consequence, how this wiki is expected to grow, and some conversations here and there about the lack of an active bureacrat, I decided to send a request to the Wikia Staff to formally adopt the wiki
 * result= Adoption finished
 * discussion=

The following text, in italics, is a transcription of the Adoption request I sent to the Wikia Staff, where all reasons and motivations have been stated:

''The wiki has been acting for more than a year without an active bureaucrat, as New Captain only comes to the wiki a few days every couple of months, mostly to answer some messages in his wall, without actively contributing to the daily tasks of the wiki. This wiki has grown so much, it is very active, with hundreds of edits each day. I've been acting as a "de-facto bureacrat" doing most of the admin work myself and tasks that should have been done by a true bureacrat. I have been encouraged to be the bureacrat by fellow administrators both privately and publicly, such as in this thread here or this one. The only active administrator (though inactive these past few days) that has been an administrator more time than me (Uskok) is currently blocked in another wiki, and therefore, if I'm not mistaken, he is ineligible for an adpotion.''

''Since New Captain is the only bureaucrat and almost never participates in the wiki, we can't count on asking him for bureaucrat rights, regular users feel discouraged knowing it would be almost impossible to be promoted to admins in a future, and there are administrators who have been inactive for more than a year and nothing can be done to demote them. Therefore, I would like to adopt the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki so I could handle those tasks.''

I'm aware that there is need to wait 60 days between edits to make the wiki eligible for adoption, but New Captain has spent more than that time inactive, returning only to make some small edits and to answer some messages in his wall, and doesn't even answered this message where I asked if he was interested in keeping his role as an admin/sysop, as he complained to previous administrators before he became one for their inactivity, but now he is the one who is inactive and not even contributing.

''I hope this situation can be solved somehow. Thank you very much for your attention.''

So, any thoughts or opinions regarding this?--Shabook (talk) 00:18, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Comments
Lets hope they skip the basic rule of 60 days, because otherwise we can be stuck in this situation for years. This wikia needs a good burueacrat, and there is no other option.TomasDerksen (talk) 00:34, August 19, 2015 (UTC) @Uskok, I have no problem in sharing bureaucrat rights and duties with you, but you are not officially eligible for an adoption given that you are blocked in another wiki.--Shabook (talk) 10:21, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid only a Wiki with no active admins can be adopted. Since we have a few active admins, the Central Wikia Staff might think not necessary for us to have an active bureaucrat. However, we could always ask them to promote some users, after we vote for those users to be promoted, the same way you guys became admins a year ago. As for myself, my computer is now completely repaired and I'll be more active.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 10:12, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * A wiki can be adopted by an admin to become a bureaucrat if the bureacrats are not active. Wikia Staff usually tells them to ask to the current bureaucrat for the rights, but they can also let an admin adopt the wiki to become the bureaucrat. As stated in the request, I left a message in New Captain's wall weeks ago, (when Coluanprime's proposal in the former section was seemingly ignored), and I have obtained no response...
 * Blocked in the line of duty, and I would do that (the reason for which I was blocked) again if I had to. BTW, since that Wiki is practically dead, I'm thinking about asking the Central Wikia Staff to delete it. But I won't be doing that to become a bureaucrat, because this isn't about you, or me, or anyone on this Wiki. It's about the Wiki, and the sooner we have more admins, the better for the Wiki. BTW, if we are to have new admins, I would propose Dr. Who and Silverstream.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 10:47, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't valuing the reason of your block or its fairness, I was just stating a fact, and I remind you that I also was in that wiki and got the same outcome back then. The only reason that I took the step of the adoption is because this situation dates to more than a year ago, and I see no other way of solving it, since I seriously doubt New Captain is going to resume his duties in a short term (because that is something that is overlooked many times, becoming admin is not about gaining rights, it's about gaining duties). Having an actual active bureactrat would allow us to speed up admin elections, or any other roles such as rollbackers, without being dependant of the wikia staff for each little step. So, basically, so that the wikia staff could clearly check this discussion in regards to the adoption: Are you ok with the request or do you propose anything else?--Shabook (talk) 11:19, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

I support you becoming the bureaucrat...I know their basic duties, and I am also of the opinion that you are the best suited for becoming one, from what I saw in the three months I have been here. 1stAvenger (talk) 12:11, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm completely ok with the request.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 15:28, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * i support whatever helps the future of this wiki; if that means that Uskok and Shabook share a position in hierarchy, fine by me.Bratpack (talk) 04:58, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

It'll be nice to have a bureaucrat on this wiki and Shabook and Uskok both seem like good candidates.
 * If we're in need of a new bureaucrat, Shabook is the person for the job. --Greater Good (talk) 10:28, August 26, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. He's the best choice.--AKA S.I.H (talk) 11:56, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, I am pretty annoyed with the 60 days rule, escpaily since they seem hard to make an exception with it. A bureaucrat can terrorize a wikia by editing once every 60 days, but not doing anything at all with the wikia, just to make sure he keeps the rights. "since he still edits, you cannot adopt, it doesnt matter if he is the most inactive user on the entire wikia, just ask him, maybe he responds over 10 days by saying no, but that means he is active enough.TomasDerksen (talk) 10:58, August 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Tomas - the rule is not quite that ironclad. We will promote another user after 30 days as long as the community is in agreement and the bureaucrat is informed.  That is actually why this discussion was happening in the first place.  But the only thing a bureaucrat can do that an admin cannot is promote/demote other users.  As there are many active admins here already, the urgency to promote another bureaucrat is unclear to me.  -- Wendy  (talk ) 05:16, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

}}

Suggestion for four new Categories
Suggestion for four new categories: 1) Androids: I tried previously making a category for all humanoid robots/drones we see operated by some form of AI, be it Iron Man suits operated by JARVIS or the Ultron Sentries. I was told to come here and discuss its creation first. Originally I called the category "Mechanical Entities" but I think "Androids" is a better name. As of the time of posting we have no category for androids (robots that take on a humanoid appearance). Contenders for this category include the Zola Bot, Iron Man armors VIII-XLIII (the only ones we see remotely piloted by JARVIS), Ultron/Ultron drones, and Vision, with other possibilities as well. This is to distinguish them from UAVs and work robots

2) Drones: This is a category for all unmanned aerial vehicles and drones, such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk, S.H.I.E.L.D. UAV, Drone Plane, D.W.A.R.F.s, Golden Retrievers, and when Civil War comes out, the Red Wing Drone. Right now there is no category for these items.

3)Work Robots: This category is for Dum-E and U, and the assembly robots which piece Ultron's various bodies together.

4) Biologically Enhanced Individuals: Referenced by Captain America when Quicksilver is first encountered. This would include all bio-augmented people, including Extremis supersoldiers, Centipede supersoldiers, the Hulk, Abomination, Inhumans (I suppose it can be debated whether or not Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are Inhumans but nevertheless they would be in the Biologically Enhanced Individuals Category), Scorch, Blizzard, Super Soldier Serum Users, Red Room-augmentation subjects, etc. As of this time there is no overarching category for 'mutates'; or people whose biology has been changed from base human to superpowered.

These are my suggestions, please let me know what you think. KennyChief (talk) 17:49, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe a category for sentient androids (Ultron and Vision), and another one for robots. The rest is being excessively detailed without being that helpful.Shabook (talk) 22:35, October 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can admit that a category for Dum-E and things like him is a bit much, but I really don't think it's excessively detailed to put a category in for those humans who are different from the standard by being superpowered. I mean, we have a category for Red Hair and High Body Count but not one for actual superpowered humans? In my personal opinion, if anything is indicative of excessive detail it's the fact we have categories as specific as Red Hair. KennyChief (talk) 01:02, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * The category for "Red Hair" is part of a series of categories about "Hair Color".--Shabook (talk) 09:25, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? That's doesn't mean it's not excessively detailed; and it doesn't discredit the idea that a comprehensive list of all those humans who differ from standard physiology would make for an excellent category. KennyChief (talk) 12:35, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going to go ahead and make that category for Sentient Androids and Robots. It looks like I have the all-clear. Please let me know if the coming categorizations need to be redacted.KennyChief (talk) 18:26, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Which HYDRA logo should be in which infobox?
As the title says, we have to decide which HYDRA logo should be in which battle infobox of which article. It's easy with the WWII era articles, but it's complicated with the modern era articles. Whitehall's cell was known to use at least three logos (the white logo on the black background, the black logo on the red background, and the original black flag with the red logo). Fortunately, we know the logo of Grant Ward's cell, but we haven't seen Alexander Pierce and Wolfgang von Strucker using any logos. I'm also not sure about the logo used by John Garrett's cell. So, which logo should be used in which articles about the battles of HYDRA Uprising and the War on HYDRA?--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 13:39, October 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say for Strucker and Pierce would use the WWII logo and Garrett would do so as well though we can debate his true loyalty to HYDRA. Correct me of I'm wrong but in the AoS episode Ragtag weren't there computers with the WWII HYDRA logo on their screen? Anyway, I say the WWII HYDRA logo for the articles relating to the HYDRA Uprising and then the white logo on the black background for the War on HYDRA with the exception of articles involving Strucker i.e Attack on the HYDRA Research Base.--Professor Ambrius (talk) 18:18, October 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Grant Ward's logo looks like an amateur scribble, so i don't think it's official HYDRA material. All other logos appear to be variants of the original World War II one, so i think that is the one we should use. I think the different logos are meant to identify different cells, not represent the whole group. KennyChief (talk) 18:36, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit, at first I believed Ward's logo was just another street graffiti, but then I remembered this image. Ward's logo is definitely inspired by Whitehall's WWII era logo.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 18:58, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't have this been discussed before changing the logos in the actual articles?--Shabook (talk) 19:16, October 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * Uskok's idea sound like our best option.--Greater Good (talk) 20:45, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not super soldiers, we're ordinary human beings, and we make mistakes. It seems Garrett's logo was black on the blue background.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 09:32, October 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Uskok also.Bratpack (talk) 12:25, October 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, the black logo with the red background was used by Jensen and Whitehall, but Whitehall's primary logo was the white logo with the black background. I'll check more AoS screencaps to see if Garrett's cell was using some other logo. But we still don't know which logos were used by Pierce, Strucker, and List.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 13:05, October 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Uskok, I think the Red and Black WWII Hydra logo for Pierce and Strucker as well as List would be just fine.--Professor Ambrius (talk) 19:53, October 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * Any other ideas?--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 16:59, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Garrett used the Barbershop Headquarters as his base, the logo that appeared on the bases' computers could be used for Garrett. Then for Whitehall, use the modern day HYDRA logo. The inverted logo that was in his office was probably just for decoration.--Professor Ambrius (talk) 17:28, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * The white logo with the black background for the battles involving Whitehall's cell.
 * The black logo with the red background for the Battle of Sudan.
 * The original red logo for the battles involving Garrett's cell. It's the most common logo and it was also used on the computers in the Barbershop Headquarters. http://screencapped.net/marvel/displayimage.php?album=46&pid=38641#top_display_media
 * The original red logo for the battles involving Strucker's and List's cell. It's the most common logo and it was also used on the computers in the Arctic HYDRA Research Facility.http://screencapped.net/marvel/displayimage.php?album=65&pid=235856#top_display_media BTW, there is at least one other logo used by Garrett's cell, the black one with the green background, used on the computers on the Bus.http://screencapped.net/marvel/displayimage.php?album=46&pid=38704#top_display_media --HYDRA Agent (talk) 08:53, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

Codenames vs real names
At the moment, our naming policy says "Character entries should be listed by their Marvel Comics codename if it is used for the character either as a proper codename or used as an alias for the character within the Marvel Cinematic Universe." We may have to change that, and the sooner we do that, the better for the Wiki. Why should we do that? Because of one simple reason. We have multiple characters who are using the same codename. Black Panther (T'Chaka and T'Challa), Ant-Man (Hank Pym and Scott Lang), and it's quite possible we'll soon have more of them (Wasp - Janet van Dyne and Hope van Dyne). We already have one real and one fictional Captain America, and if Steve Rogers really dies at the end of Captain America: Civil War and Sam Wilson takes his place, we'll have another real Captain America.

BTW, if two characters use the same codename, it's usual that that the codename leads to the first user of that codename. In our case, the codename Ant-Man leads to Scott Lang, the second user. That needs to be corrected.

In some cases we are already ignoring the policy in one way (Baron Strucker/Wolfgang von Strucker, Baron Zemo/Helmut Zemo) and in some cases in another way (Baron Mordo - No degrees or titles, such as General, Agent or Doctor).

We already had to change one article from one codename (War Machine) to another one (Iron Patriot) only to have to switch back to the original codename (War Machine). Using the real names would prevent such problems from ever happening again. Therefore, my proposal is to move all heroes and villains articles to their real names and keep the codenames as titles of the articles only if the hero's/villain's real name is unknown (like the Mandarin). What say you?--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 18:01, October 31, 2015 (UTC) Also, Marvel uses, most prominently, the codenames, that is the reason the movies are called Captain America: The Winter Soldier, instead of Steve Rogers: The Bucky Barnes; Iron Man 3 instead of Anthony Stark 3, Daredevil instead of The Adventures of Blind Matt Murdock, and so on. As for people sharing codenames, we use, logically, the codename for its current user, just like every other information in this wiki. The proposal as it is currently redacted based its reasons on things that are not true.--Shabook (talk) 18:10, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree. Maybe the current policy needs some clarification and a better redaction, and I'm not against that. And your redaction here has been misleading. The change of a codename (War Machine to Iron Patriot to War Machine) is covered in the current policy, and that reflects the "then-current" information about the character. There is also another section where it talks about having titles or degrees in a codename, such as Doctor Strange or Captain America.
 * On a side note. Even the Marvel Wiki, that tends to use full real names even when they are hardly ever used, has needed to ignore its own policy regarding the most popular characters.--Shabook (talk) 18:13, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * But if Sam Wilson becomes the next Captain America, we'll have to edit more than 500 articles so they could lead to Sam Wilson's article and not Steve Rogers' article anymore. That's why the Marvel Database Wiki uses the real names and not the codenames anymore. We should follow their example. The names of the movies will stay the same. No one is proposing to change the names of the movies.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 18:16, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * We are going to base this on something that may happen in the future? If that is the reason, and if that happenes in, (let's say, 3 or 4 years?) I will personally fix each and every article. I've visited many similar wikis, and the ones that use real names instead of the more popular codenames receive constant messages to change them. I think a full change is a bad idea, and, quoting yourself, we are not the Marvel Wiki. On the other hand, as I said before, a review of the policy with clarifications and examples that have appeared since it was written and maybe some changes if needed is more than welcome.--Shabook (talk) 18:26, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should also quote my "We shouldn't say no to something good from another Wiki." I'm not basing this on something that may happen in the future, this is what had to be done a long time ago, but three years ago New Captain was still an active admin and I just went with the flow. What if it turns out that Gideon Malick is the MCU verion of Albert Malik and the next Red Skull? Should we move all links to Red Skull to Gideon Malick? It would look ridiculous.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 18:35, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * You're basing this proposal on things that may happen, not on facts. And I doubt it is something good. As I said before, they don't even follow their own policy, and I know for a fact that it has led to multiple mistakes. For example there were and there are lots of duplicated pages about exactly the same characters by only changing a little word. And I know it for a fact because I edited there this summer trying to fix as many as I could, but it was such a mess that it's almost impossible. That's not something we should import.--Shabook (talk) 18:42, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be fine moving all pages to character's real name/most used name. So it would be Steve Rogers instead of Captain American or Steven Rogers.Coluanprime (talk) 18:54, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * @Shabook That's why we should import only the good things, not the mess. I believe no one wants the mess here, and Marvel Wiki has so many problems because it's so big. We, on the other hand, don't have them, and we can prevent them with this preventive action.
 * @Coluanprime That's what we still have to decide but I prefer the full names, or in this case Steven Grant Rogers.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 18:58, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm even more against that. Who calls him Steven Grant Rogers? Or Margaret Carter? Or Samuel Koenig? As I said before, we don't need to change the whole wiki just in case something happens in 2018 or 2019...--Shabook (talk) 19:05, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

My counterproposal is, like I said before, to improve and clarify the current policy to take care of different examples that may have popped up since the policy was written. As for acting regarding things that may happen in the future, we should not do that. We have always wait until Marvel says something to act having all the cards on the table (Marvel acts, we react). In this case, changing the codename from one of their most notable characters (Captain America), would require a lot of explanation from Marvel, both in-universe and out-of-universe, aimed to the general public that watches the movies but doesn't read comics or know about them as much as we do. I believe that's the prudent and correct way to act.--Shabook (talk) 19:45, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * I have always wished we referred to people by their real names, like Steve Rogers instead of Captain America, or Tony Stark instead Iron Man, for the reasons Uskok initially listed. KennyChief (talk) 20:20, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that the way we got the articles named works just fine, because as Shabook said not everyone know as much as us about these characters. Even Raina said it "Have you ever heard of Steve Rogers? No. Captain America, now he's on the news and lunch box and a poster on the wall." Everyone know the names of the heroes, but not the real names. Now, this happens to me when I go to the Arrowverse Wiki, I go there and try to look for a character using their alias, then I see that there are multiple names when I look for one character (F.E. I try looking for "King Shark" and when I type King there appears two names "Derek Reston" and "Shay Lamden") My point is that it is confusing to look for one character and then it appears different names instead of the name your looking for. --AKA S.I.H (talk) 20:47, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of Uskok's proposal, but not completely for the reasons stated. The codenames are much more important and prominent in the comics. In the MCU, real names are much more prevalent with codenames more for marketing to nods to comic book fans. For example, characters like Ivan Vanko and Bobbi Morse were marketed as Whiplash and Mockingbird, but never referred as such onscreen. I also like the consistency of real names because everyone has one. It would be clearer and easier to determine. As it stands now, I have seen several disputes that might have been avoided. I am in favor of using the most commonly used real names, e.g., Steve Rogers. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:59, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer code names for the reason that SIH gave, especially the Raina quote. I believe when a person wants to read an article, they look for the code name first, because of marketing. The comic con told us "Mockingbird" was coming; she has never used that name on the show, but someone new will search for "Mockingbird". That is why we have redirects and disambiguation. When i grew up, comic writers had a policy: This issue might be the reader's first, so it must be written so that the newbie will feel comfortable, but the plot can also progress. When a newbie comes to this wiki after watching a movie, he, imho, knows code names from classic characters, not first or even last names. Who knows Johann Schmidt? But if i ask, "Who is the Red Skull?", there is immediate recognition. We must remember the person who comes to the wiki for the first time and how we can help that newbie enjoy his experience here and contine to read our hard work. "Ant-Man" is Scott Lang; the movie was about him. Hank Pym WAS Ant-Man; but we provide the LATEST information. IF, IF Sam Wilson becomes Captain America, then we should do the same thing that we did for QUAKE; the past is the past and now we adapt. We should tackle this problem, cross this bridge, when we get to it. Acting proactively for this would be confusing and, i think, would hurt our readers.Bratpack (talk) 23:56, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, people who watch the show will look for Bobbi. Millions of people watch the show, a few thousand saw the video. Comic names can be maintained as redirects but the articles should be titled by real name.


 * I agree. And like Shabook said, IF Falcon or Bucky become Captain America, then no matter how much work needs to be done, no matter how many links need to be changed, we will put our time and effortinto fixing every single link. I will personally assist him with changing them all. MCUFFTW ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ 01:00, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects will always send a reader to the proper location in either case (status quo or accepting the proposal). However, perhaps we should consider a different option. Why not pages for both? Steve Rogers is a person, so he deserves a page. Captain America is a notable title, so that deserves a page. Why does one or the other need to be a redirect? If Bucky Barnes or Sam Wilson takes over the title, then it could be noted very quickly and easily. If there is too much duplicate info, that could be resolved using templates. Just a thought. - DinoSlider (talk) 02:12, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bratpack and SIH. The codenames are iconic, and that's what most, if not all people look for. I think we should keep them. Dr.Who1997To The Playground 08:35, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * But the codenames will redirect to the first users of that codename. Captain America to Steven Rogers, Ant-Man to Henry Pym, etc. We don't even have to move the articles to their full names. It can be Steven Rogers instead of Steven Grant Rogers, Natalia Romanoff instead of Natalia Alianovna Romanoff. We can even move the articles to their most common civilian names (Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff), but the titles like Baron and Captain shouldn't be used as the names of the articles.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 09:06, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm getting confused already and nothing has happened yet!! Are you saying that, in the FUTURE, when i type "Ant-Man", it will refer me to Hank Pym ('cause, right now, it goes to Lang)? Why would i want that? I would want to go to the larest title holder. You know what is so ironic: i asked this same question EXACTLY a year ago on the comment board of "Black Panther (film)"; we are divided along the same lines then as we are now...Bratpack (talk) 11:43, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think DinoSlider has a good point. These are superhero names, and each superhero has 1 or more aliases. When i search for Scott Lang, it should refer to Scott Lang, not to Ant-Man. When i search for Ant-Man it should refer to Ant-Man.The Donutman (talk) 12:16, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave things as they are for now and react accordingly to changes when necessary.--Greater Good (talk) 13:23, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested, I did a quick test to show how my idea could work. I have a codename page, Ant-Man, which includes only the biographies from the individual pages Hank Pym and Scott Lang. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:46, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with others that we should mantain the aliases instead of the real names. Many wikis add the real names instead of the aliases, but the MCU wiki is more unique than any others because we use the aliases, which is not only more fun, but loyal to what attracts most people to this kind of wiki: the superhero themes. Speaking of double aliases, no problem on that. Ant-Man is Scott Lang now, not Hank Pym, so Scott should be called Ant-Man, not Hank, same goes for T'Challa and T'Chaka on Black Panther.--Draft227 (talk) 12:26, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * And when Sam Wilson takes over the mantle of Captain America, the best known holder of the name overnight becomes some anonymous Steve Rogers. As for where the codenames should redirect, as a counter-solution, they could lead to the disambiguation pages. Captain America to Captain America (disambiguation), Ant-Man to Ant-Man (disambiguation), Baron Zemo to Baron Zemo (disambiguation), etc.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 19:20, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * But you are basing this on a personal though that a character may become another one. This didn't happen, and if happen, the members have made clear that they will all do their best to change all the pages, such as Shabook said in one of the first commentes.--Draft227 (talk) 17:52, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * Before I vote, let me see if I understand this completely. If I like the way the naming policy is now, I vote for Code Names. And if (for example) Sam or Bucky becomes a new Captain America, their pages will not be renamed to show their new codename? Please correct me if I have this completely wrong.--Professor Ambrius (talk) 20:56, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * @Draft227 But if we use the titles for the names of the articles, why not have General Ross instead of Thaddeus Ross? This is also another case where we are ignoring the policy (Thunderbolt Ross) in favor of the more practical option (real name). I'm just asking to apply that more practical option on all articles, not just some of them.
 * @Professor Ambrius If you vote for Code Names, the situation stays problematic as it is. The solution will just have to be postponed for another time. I would rather solve the problem now than have to wait for another year.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 21:23, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, a reason that's not true. The rank/title is used sometimes, by some characters, as his codename. We all know examples in popular culture (Doctor Strange, Doctor Octopus...), but that doesn't mean that every doctor uses its medical degree as his codename. As for Ross, the codename he has had in the comics is Red Hulk, "Thunderbolt" is a nickname, and the current policy explains the difference between them.--Shabook (talk) 21:29, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * We both know what you're saying is wrong. Before he became Red Hulk, Ross was best known as Thunderbolt Ross. Since that name was used in the MCU, why are we ignoring our own policy and calling him by his real name? Either everyone should be called by their codenames, nicknames, or titles, or no one. It's too bloody confusing.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 11:21, November 2, 2015 (UTC)

Votes
Here you can vote about the proposal to change the way character pages are named in the You can vote for using the real names or using the codenames by adding your signature (Typing ~ ). The voting process will last for exactly a week, which means it will end on November 8 in 19:35 UTC. All voters must be active members of the wiki, having joined before the voting process began, and having edited an article in the last two months.--Shabook (talk) 19:35, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

For "Real Names"

 * 1) UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters 20:17, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Chrisflistal (talk) 21:51, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Coluanprime (talk) 23:03, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) SHIELDAgent154 (talk) 00:57, November 2, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) X-Men Are Cool {talk) 04:04, November 2, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) --HYDRA Agent (talk) 07:45, November 2, 2015 (UTC)

For "Code Names"

 * 1) Nurdboy42 (talk) 19:38, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) MCUFFTW ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ 19:57, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Dr.Who1997To The Playground 20:05, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Lowriders95s10 (talk) 20:06, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Bratpack (talk) 20:08, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Draft227 (talk 18:21, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Knightman (talk) 17:24, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) 1stAvenger (talk) 21:38, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) AKA S.I.H (talk) 22:03, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Babyrockhopper (talk) 22:53, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Bridgetterocks (talk) 07:40, November 2, 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Erisiel (talk) 09:26, November 2, 2015 (UTC)

Other Comments
I will not vote, because I am fine with both ways.TomasDerksen (talk) 20:58, November 1, 2015 (UTC)