Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki
Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki
⠀
43,180
pages
in: Community

Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki:Community Portal/Archive I

< Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki:Community Portal
Sign in to edit
Archive
Archives

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.

Nominate New Admins[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Bratpack, Greater good, Shabook and TomasDerksen are nominated as Admins {{{sig}}}

Hey, guys! This Wiki needs new Admins. But, to keep everything regular, I want you to propose those who you think would be the best for this job. When the nominations are over, we'll have a vote.--UskokHail HYDRA! 10:48, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Is this where I should put my opinion? I'll go with yes. I would like to nominate two members. 1: Shabook, seeing as they have the most edits of anyone on the wiki. However I remember seeing a minor blowout about him/her resigning? I could be wrong, I saw it a while back. You guys know better than I do, so use your own judgment.
2: I would also like the nominate Bratpack, as he has the most points after two of our current administrators, Uskok and TurtleTrekker. These are my nominations.:-)
~Silverstream (talk) 11:08, August 9, 2014 (UTC)Silverstream
Well I know there is need for 2 more admins, I will only nominate one.
I will nominate Shabook to become an admin, the amount of work he has put in for the wiki is just massive, yes, he has been a pain for the current admins multiple times, but he is just a perfectionist and someone with his activity and amount of work would be usefull to have i the admin corps.
I have seen someone nominated Bratpack because of the amount of points he has earned, which can be a good reason and I believe Bratpack could be a good admin as well. but my reaction to that is: New Captain, the Main Admin, is only the number 12 on the wiki, Having many points shouldn't be the only reason to become an admin.
TomasDerksen (talk) 11:33, August 9, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
Hello I would like to nominate shabook as he is one that does not settle for anything less than perfection and is very good at cleaning pages up.--Doctor Stranger (talk) 13:18, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to nominate Shabook and Bratpack for admins. They do a ton of work and are both friendly and helpful to others. I'd also like to nominate myself as I have done a ton of work on it and enjoy the wiki and the community. Coluanprime (talk) 14:12, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Greater good would make a good candidate i think. Valyrian Wildfire 15:50, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I would be a good Admin. I work well with other people and I would make sure people follow the rules.
The Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. (talk) 18:12, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with Shabook as an Admin since he is dedicated and has a firm grasp on grammar and coding. He is also online more than anyone here for quick responses to problems. While Bratpack is a great writer, his coding skills are not up to Admin quality. Thurgood42 (talk) 18:56, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
I would like to nominate 1. Shabook and 2. ThomasDerksen, because they are both good people who know exactly how to handle every situation here on the wiki. I feel like there is nothing else to be said, they are my two obvious choices.
MCUFFTW (talk) 19:28, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Good evening. My two nominations are Tomasderksen and Shabook. Their knowledge of this wiki's policies are great and constant. Their work is extensive. Shabook in my opinion was my S.O. when I first came here, teaching me how to write "wiki-style". Tomas is kind ( something I can't even claim) all the time, even in ignorant situations. I hope my thoughts are written correctly, in the right spaces. Thank you, Bratpack (talk) 21:38, August 9, 2014 (UTC)Bratpack
Bratpack (talk) 21:38, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Can we vote soon.Thurgood42 (talk) 22:07, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
Could we start the voting process? It seems like everyone has put forward nominations.Coluanprime (talk) 16:20, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
Of course. There is just one small formality left to do.--UskokHail HYDRA! 19:33, August 16, 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Modified templates[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Against is the winner {{{sig}}}

On the request of user Bold Clone, here you can vote about his proposal to modify our current character templates. You can vote for, or against his proposal. Just add your signatures and that's it.--UskokHail HYDRA! 17:52, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Here is my proposal: As things currently stand, anyone currently using or preferring the "MonoBook" wiki skin is unable to read the Character template, because all of the font is rendered as black. The proposed changes is that the template's coding design will be altered so that the white font is compatible with the MonoBook skin while leaving the Wikia's appearance intact. -- 18:04, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

For

  1. Coluanprime (talk) 18:09, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Bold Clone 18:14, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Coq87rouge (talk) 18:28, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  4. The Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. The Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. (talk) 16:00, August 10, 2014 (UTC)
  5. WickedHanschen (talk) 14:54, August 12, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Chrisflistal (talk) 20:00, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

Against

  1. Shabook (talk) 17:54, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  2. MCUFFTW (talk) 19:19, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  3. ~Silverstream (talk) 19:57, August 9, 2014 (UTC)Silverstream
  4. Thurgood42 (talk) 19:59, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  5. --Doctor Stranger (talk) 21:02, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Bratpack (talk) 21:40, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  7. Babyrockhopper (talk) 21:40, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Blaublau94 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 21:58, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Tomas Derksen (talk) 00:39, August 10, 2014

Comments

What are the propsed modifications?Coluanprime (talk) 18:09, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Look here. And remeber to sign your comments.--UskokHail HYDRA! 17:59, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
As things currently stand, anyone currently using or preferring the "MonoBook" wiki skin is unable to read the Character template, because all of the font is rendered as black. The proposed changes is that the template's coding design will be altered so that the white font is compatible with the MonoBook skin while leaving the Wikia's appearance intact. --Bold Clone 18:04, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
As things are, my current view of the character template is this:
In order for me to see any normal font (non-links), I must highlight the whole page so that it looks like this:
As you can guess, this is a huge hassle for me to go through any time I must use any template anywhere on this site. Hence my proposal. --Bold Clone 22:09, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the majority of the wikia's users and visitors don't use this Monobook skin and by that, we can not choose the demands of the minority over the demands of the majority. When you change the template's background colour to gray, it makes very hard, if not saying impossible, for us (the "normal" wikia's skin users) to read the pages. You don't have to be a graphic designer to see that a white text on a gray background is something you shouldn't do. I'm sorry if it is a huge hassle for you to visit the wikia the way it is--Blaublau94 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 23:18, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! That is just what I needed to hear. No one else earlier would tell me what they were seeing, which meant I could not collaborate with them to imrpove the template. That said, if you had read my comment above, you would have seen that I have found a way around that, which means the template can still be black, but the font is visible in MonoBook. --Bold Clone 23:22, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
I told you earlier, right here...--Blaublau94 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 23:36, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
...You said grey-on-grey there. My aim was dark grey-(close to black)-on-white--which is what I was seeing. --Bold Clone 23:38, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Why would you not use the the look of this wiki, like 99% of the users do, instead of the look of wikipedia, instead of changing something most agree on to something you agree on, you could also change your skin, alot easier.
TomasDerksen (talk) 23:28, August 9, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
One, I am most familiar with the look of Wikipedia. Wikia is just a scrambled-up, poorly-colored mess to me.
Two, I am most comfortable with look of Wikipedia. I think it looks neutral, calm, and professional, as compared to having movie posters for backgrounds screaming at me for attention every time I load a page.
Three, if the changes work, the Wikia users won't notice anything, because like I mentioned earlier, I found a way to make the templates visually identical but mutually compatible for both skins. --Bold Clone 23:36, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is the wiki about a Cinematic Universe, so that poster in the back ground is beloved. And it isn't pooorly colored at all it is black and white. I have seen your sandbox, on which you have 10 different colors, including black (Which wont work, white would). 10 different colors for those links, that would be a to much different colors, keep it simple, white on black.TomasDerksen (talk) 23:46, August 9, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen

Aesthetically speaking, the human eye is drawn to the color black, because it is so dark. Having the background be mostly black is a poor decoration choice. Additionally, the colors were to code the movies, so you could easily see which franchise they belong to. Color-coding a movie title in bold is nowhere near the scale of blacking out the background (the titles are much smaller, so even though they are a veritable rainbow of colors, their effect is considerably less). --Bold Clone 23:52, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
For one the effect is less, for another it isn't. I do not think it is a poor decoration choice at all, it is a good one, it is simpel and I like it more then white (which is quit boring). I personaly would only think it is to much difference, to busy, to have 10 different colors in a template. The effect it would have on me woul be considerably more. Luckely enough there is only a small change the templates would be changed, and even a smaller change to have templates with 10 diffent colors. It is not that I am against you, but I just do not think something should change for a minority of the people, when a majority of the people do not want it.TomasDerksen (talk) 23:57, August 9, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
At the end of the day, it comes down to personal aesthetics. But we're not voting about my prototype templates. We're voting over whether or not I can make the Character template visible to myself and completely unchanged for you. You realize that, right? --Bold Clone 00:01, August 10, 2014 (UTC)
yes, I am aware of that and I voted against that, since you know, it was your choise to no use the skin this wiki uses, so the problems it gives to you, are not our problems.TomasDerksen (talk) 00:03, August 10, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
I wish all users were as honest about their apathy as you are. --Bold Clone 00:07, August 10, 2014 (UTC)
Three votes for, and nine votes against. I guess this subject is settled.--UskokHail HYDRA! 15:22, August 10, 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

I would like to be an admin[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Bratpack, Greater good, Shabook and TomasDerksen are nominated as Admins {{{sig}}}

Hey Marvelites (that is slang for Marvel fans, if you haven't heard)! This is Milomilk! I have been wanting to be an admin for the past 2 years. I have been even asking the admins if I could be one. I have made many of the pages and templates on the wiki including: {

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Upcoming category and template.[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Template made {{{sig}}}

Hey guys,

As you might have noticed we got rid of 90% of the really wanted wantedpages, from the wantedpages list (the others are not wanted).

This does mean we have a lot of new pages without an image and even more stubs.

We currently have 124 stubs and even more imageless articles. Alot of those pages are for articles that belong to an upcoming marvel product, therefor they cannot be edited yet (as in: in universe plot and image). It can be a hard thing to do for people to filter the page they can de-stub or can place an image in, within does 124 (and more imageless) pages.

To make it more easy I wanted to make a template and category for all in-universe articles that belong to upcoming products (Agent Carter, AOS Season 2, ant-man, Capt 3, All the netflix series, AoU). The template will then replace the imageless and/or the stub templat on the page, removing it from those categories and placing it in the upcoming category.

This would decrease the amount of pages in the imageless and stub category and make it alot more easy to find the pages you can edit and to oversee the amount of pages that could be edited by no one particular.

I wanted to know if anyone does not agree with this plan.

TomasDerksen (talk) 01:17, August 11, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen

If no one objects, I start doing this tomorrow TomasDerksen (talk) 18:29, August 11, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
Sounds good to me!Coluanprime (talk) 19:39, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
I've modified a little the template, to differentiate it from the stub template. Also, I've fixed the category it would automatically add the articles to, with the name used in other wikis for similar purposes. But given that I once had a similar idea about a template for upcoming characters that was disregarded by our current administrators, I would wait a little before doing so.Shabook (talk) 20:00, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
The admins have been online, so if they had objections (or anyone else) it could have been placed already. The content behind it, yeah that works. Thanks for improving it.TomasDerksen (talk) 20:07, August 11, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
This is a great idea. I have one little suggestion. Since most of the info on these articles are from leaks I think we should add something that says something like "Since this has yet to be released this information is subject to change." That way people know that the content is not set in stone.Thurgood42 (talk) 22:18, August 11, 2014 (UTC)
You can edit it in, it is usefull.TomasDerksen (talk) 03:09, August 12, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen

I have no objections.--UskokHail HYDRA! 06:28, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Race/Citizenship[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Template edited {{{sig}}}

I was thinking about adding "Citizenship" on the Race Template because when you look on the Broker character you can see his "Citizenship" is Xandarian, but his race clearly is not, as James Gunn said himself "Xandar is multi-cultural".

  • About human characters, the Citizenship can be their nacionality, like "Steve Rogers -> American" and "Camilla Reyes -> Peruvian"
  • About the non Kree characters under the Kree Empire like the Sakaarans, Korath and the Exolon Monks, it would be perfect to add "Kree Empire Citizenship" to them.
  • About Hogun, it woulb be "Vanir < br > Asgardian"
  • About Natasha, it would be "Russian < br > American" (Quote: "Regimes fall every day. I tend not to weep over that, I'm Russian, or I was.")
  • About Blonsky, it would be "Russian < br > English"

And soo on...--Blaublau94 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 18:21, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Coluanprime (talk) 01:19, August 13, 2014 (UTC)
Makes a lot of sense. Greater good (talk) 01:40, August 13, 2014 (UTC)
I agree.--UskokHail HYDRA! 06:01, August 13, 2014 (UTC)
I agree.Bratpack (talk) 10:34, August 13, 2014 (UTC)
I agree.TomasDerksen (talk) 14:14, August 13, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
If everyone agrees, now all we need is the admins to unlock the character template.--Blaublau94 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 15:08, August 13, 2014 (UTC)
Although the overall idea is great, I've seen A LOT of speculation. It is simply impossible to know the citizenship of many characters. So, just like the age or any other data, when unknown, the "citizenship" field should be left empty.Shabook (talk) 18:32, August 15, 2014 (UTC)
You have seen speculation, doesnt mean the one who placed it speculated it. TomasDerksen (talk) 18:48, August 15, 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Vote for new admins[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Bratpack, Greater good, Shabook, and TomasDerksen are elected as admins. {{{sig}}}

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, here you can vote for or against those who are nominated for new admins. There are only two rules: You can't vote for or against yourself, and anonymous votes (IP signatures) aren't acceptable. All voters must be part of our community.--UskokHail HYDRA! 08:30, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Bratpack

(Uskok: Quick question: Is there such thing as co-admins? I will need help (preferably my S.O. Shabook) with code and such. So IF I get the position, can he get it too?)Bratpack (talk) 00:15, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

For

  1. Babyrockhopper (talk) 10:49, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  2. ~Silverstream (talk) 13:05, August 17, 2014 (UTC)Silverstream
  3. Coq87rouge (talk) 13:06, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Thurgood42 (talk) 15:41, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  5. User:Knightman92 (talk) 13:10, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Blaublau94 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 17:24, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  7. TomasDerksen (talk) 23:34, August 17, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
  8. --UskokHail HYDRA! 17:31, August 18, 2014 (UTC)
  9. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 00:20, August 22, 2014 (UTC)
  10. CaptainMagnum (talk) 23:23, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Against

Greater good

For

  1. Valyrian Wildfire (talk) 16:03, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  2. --UskokHail HYDRA! 17:31, August 18, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Chrisflistal (talk) 19:16, August 20, 2014 (UTC)
  4. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 00:20, August 22, 2014 (UTC)

Against

Shabook

For

  1. Bratpack (talk) 10:05, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Thurgood42 (talk) 15:41, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Coluanprime (talk) 18:06, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  4. MCUFFTW (talk) 23:25, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  5. --UskokHail HYDRA! 17:31, August 18, 2014 (UTC)
  6. ~Silverstream (talk) 02:41, August 19, 2014 (UTC)Silverstream
  7. Chrisflistal (talk) 19:16, August 20, 2014 (UTC)
  8. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 00:20, August 22, 2014 (UTC)

Against

  1. TomasDerksen (talk) 10:55, August 23, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
  2. CaptainMagnum (talk) 23:23, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

TomasDerksen

For

  1. Bratpack (talk) 10:06, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Chrisflistal (talk) 19:16, August 20, 2014 (UTC)
  3. CaptainMagnum (talk) 23:23, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Against

Comments

About Bratpack's question, it works the other way too, IF I get the position, I'd like him as an admin too, there is enough work in the wiki for both of us, and as we've worked many times as a good team, I think the whole community would benefit with having both as admins. Thank you!Shabook (talk) 00:18, August 19, 2014 (UTC)
When does voting end?Coluanprime (talk) 00:31, August 22, 2014 (UTC)
On Monday the 25th.--UskokHail HYDRA! 18:39, August 22, 2014 (UTC)
With ten votes for him and none against him, Bratpack is elected as an admin. With four votes for him and none against him, Greater good is elected as an admin. With eight votes for him and two against him, Shabook is elected as an admin. With three votes for him and none against him, TomasDerksen is elected as an admin. Congratulations to all new admins. You will be promoted by the Central Wiki staff during the course of the day.--UskokHail HYDRA! 06:54, August 25, 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Additions to the Wiki[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Categories for Actors with Different MCU Roles and Actors with Roles in Comic Book Adaptations outside the Marvel Cinematic Universe created {{{sig}}}

I have three possible additions to the wiki I would like to bring to your awareness...

1. On the List of Minor Characters, the template could be changed or edited so that a user is able to click on the image and see it instead of it bringing them to the actor's page. I'm not great with templates but I think it'd be possible.

2. On pages such as Chris Evans or Reed Diamond, where it lists other actors who have been in Marvel movies by other studios, this could be changed into a category so someone doesn't have to go to all those pages and add a name everytime a person joins that requirement.

3. Similar to number two, a category could be made for actors who portray multiple characters inside the MCU like Patton Oswalt or Laura Haddock.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response,

Babyrockhopper (talk) 18:01, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of these, it had been bugging me some too.Coluanprime (talk) 18:12, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I agreeTomasDerksen (talk) 18:25, August 17, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen

I added the category for Number #3, as Category:Actors with Multiple MCU Roles. If anyone thinks of a better name, we can discuss it here.Shabook (talk) 01:35, August 22, 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Proliferation of New Categories[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Clean-up of categories, removal of the actor Navbox {{{sig}}}

In these past days, I've been cleaning up a ton of different "useless" things in the wiki, and one that caught my attention was the different files for each image of each actor in each film premiere they attended, which is funny as actors' pages only use a single image, and therefore, that means a lot of unused and unneeded files. But what is really starting to worry me is the proliferation of new minor categories, for example:

  1. Is it really needed to have different categories for the actors depending on which comic book adaptation they appeared? I mean, for the purpose of this wiki, Jon Favreau's Foggy Nelson is just as outside of the MCU as Tommy Lee Jones' Two Face.
  2. It was really needed to add ten new categories intended to be created just for the article about Nick Fury, each one for each different comic he appeared? I deleted them because, simply, it wasn't practical to "spam" the articles with so many categories. If allowed, how many new categories would Coulson or Black Widow have then? Maybe a general category for characters appearing in the tie-in comics, but not a category for each comic.
  3. The category "Marvel properties not owned by Marvel Studios", is it really needed? They are unrelated, and not even Kevin Feige is sure about which rights he himself owns and which ones he does not. Does each unrelated Easter Egg need a category?

I think there is need of a clear policy about this, before we start to see more wild things...Shabook (talk) 20:09, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

That's why I don't like all these "This-movie-Characters" categories. I think we should remove all those categories and replace them with templates for each film's characters. Maybe we should make similar templates for the video game characters and comic book characters. As for new categories, I think every new category should first be approved by the majority of the admins.--UskokHail HYDRA! 10:50, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Before I became an admin, I said only admin should make categories to keep it strictly within the wiki's mission specs. Would that help? I agree that new categories should be up for vote. I like the old ways where comic book characters did not have a category. My failure as an admin was in not asking the past ones their policies and concerns so that it can be seen by all, so all can know this wiki's mission. Is there any way to have a meeting so that it can be known and things put solidln on the table?...Bratpack (talk) 11:13, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Here are my first proposals:
  1. Change back the categories for actors in other comic book movies to a single category with a CLEAR name, that would cover every comic book adaptation outside the MCU, no matter if it's marvel, DC, movie, tv series, etc., as it is specified in the trivia of each actor
  2. Delete the category "Marvel properties not owned by Marvel Studios", honestly, I can't see its usefulness, as the elements placed are not even remotely related for the purpose of this wiki.
  3. Group together all the recently created categories about the One-Shots crew members, just like it has been done with the Category:Marvel One-Shots Locations, Category:Marvel One-Shots Items and Category:Marvel One-Shots Weapons

For what I've seen, things are escalating about this topic, and it needs a solution soonShabook (talk) 12:00, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Why should we have categories for anything not related to the MCU? The subject of this Wikia is the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and nothing else. Not DC, nor Marvel Comics, nor other movies inspired by Marvel Comics. I agree with Shabook, categories like "Marvel properties not owned by Marvel Studios" are not needed. Also, about the "This-Movie-Characters" categories, I propose that we make templates, similar to the current Navbox Actors template, for characters of each MCU film, and use these templates instead of the categories. If the character appears in more than one film, we'll put more than one template at the bottom of the article. Thus we could remove all "real-world categories" from in-universe articles.--UskokHail HYDRA! 13:20, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
The main issue about those templates is that each time an article linked in the template is renamed/deleted, each article linked in the template must be edited one by one, to fix the link. The actors that abandoned Ant-Man (Patrick Wilson and Clifton Collins Jr.) appeared in the template, and after deleting them, each of the 846 actors pages had to be edited. And the same happened when renaming JJ Feild's page to his actual name. And obviously, that's not practical. Personally, I don't like that navbox, you have to expand it two or three times to access the information you want, and I tend to go to the actual category about actors.
About the trivia of actors appearing in other comic adaptations, I think it's worth mentioning it, but with clear and defined limits, as there has also been a proliferation of pointless trivia, like "Michael Douglas had an estranged daughter in another film". If we don't define the limits, someone could consider worthy creating a category for actors that appeared in the Lord of the Rings franchise, another for actors that appeared in Joss Whedon's previous shows, another for actors whose first name is "Chris", and so on.
I think that for those kind of situations is where having a policy, like the ones I wrote a few months ago for naming articles or organizing articles are needed, despite one of the admins that got promoted later disregarded them...Shabook (talk) 13:44, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
I also don't like templates. Like Shabook said any changes to them take a lot of work. It would also make characters like Nick Fury have dozens of templates.Thurgood42 (talk) 13:57, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
The templates would be similar to this. In that case, if some link has to be fixed, we would have to edit only the template, not every article. As for Fury, he would have only ten or fifteen templates if we make the templates only for movies and TV series.--UskokHail HYDRA! 14:01, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
With that template the problem is the same, it is required to edit each single article where the template appears when a change is made to the template, even although the link doesn't actually appear in the article. For example, when I renamed the Portals appearing in Template:Movie and Template:TV, to keep consistency with the rest of subpages, I needed to edit each single film and tv show article to update the new link, opening the editor and clicking the publish button without making an actual edit. Imagine that if a character or item is renamed in the "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." template, you would have to make an edit in every actor, crew member, character, item, weapon, and location article where the template appears. They are going to provide tons of extra useless work...Shabook (talk) 14:15, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the non-templat side. There should be clear limits on categories, if you ask me, categories like "blue hair", "brown eyes" are all unneeded aswell, we haven't got "Blue skin","Brown Skin","White Skin" so why would we have those categories for hair and eyes. For comicbook stuf: "Comic Item", "Comic Location", "Comic Character", same way we have for the One-shots.
If I by example take a look at the Phil Coulson article. The 2 one-shots categories should be removed The Males (which you can see), Blue Eyes and Brown Hair should be removed. He is either lvel 8 or level 10, we use the latest appearence, so level 8 should be removed. What should be added is "Comic book Character" and "One-shot Character". Besides I was wondering the use of the "Characters Killed by .." Categories, personnaly I think they are unneeded. At first, the name is out-of-universe, so if we use them characters should be a different (in universe) word, but I prefer not to use them aswell. Just my 2 cents.TomasDerksen (talk) 14:22, September 3, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
If you remove the gender and physical appearance categories, some character pages would remain uncategorized, so they must be kept. As for Coulson's new clearance level as "Level 10", that's speculation, there is no official source that Coulson's new S.H.I.E.L.D. is going to use clearance levels, and is going to be removed now.
Then we keep "male" and "Female", but if we have "Comic Character", "One-shot Character" and Character category for every movie/tv serie, every character on the wikia will have atleast one category. But like I said: Why do we have groups for eyes and hair, but not for skin color, which is the same kind of category. (I find all three of them useless, but it is an example). The way to make sure every character has a category of having a category for "Comic Book Characters" and one for "One-shot Characters", because every character is from either one of those we already have, or from one of these 2 I just mentioned.TomasDerksen (talk) 14:32, September 3, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
About the categories for appearences outside of the MCU, the name could be something like: "Actors With Non-MCU Comic Book Adaptions Roles", could replace both the other roles. And those categories about one-shot crew should be one.TomasDerksen (talk) 14:37, September 3, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
Mentioned only characters like Ovette, Kamaria, Abner Croit, Uri Dubrovsky and many more won't get that category, so there is need for those general appearance categories. As for the skin color, the general Marvel Wikia has a category for it, and if it gains importance, just like with Sif's mention of aliens categorizing them just for their blue skin in Yes Men, then it is a worthy category to be added.
Mentioned only characters like Ovette, Kamaria, Abner Croit, Uri Dubrovsky and many more won't get that category, so there is need for those general appearance categories. As for the skin color, the general Marvel Wikia has a category for it,e and if it gains importance, just like Sif's mention of aliens categorizing them just for their blue skin in Yes Men, then it is a worthy article to be added.
That is why I have always been saying that we should creat a "Mentioned Only" Category. idk if we should have it as "Mentioned Only Characters" and "Mentioned Only Locations", or as "Mentioned Only" for those together. But from the moment I joined this Wiki I have been wanting such a category to appear. It would take all the problems away, every character would have such a category "One-shot Character", "Comic Character", "(Movie name) Character", "(TV-Show name) Character" or "Mentioned Only Character". And for those mentioned only we could always have the "Male"/"Female" categorie, so they will still have a category. Btw, In 2 of your examples (Abner Croit and Uri) the category "Agents of Shield Character" is used, should they not be removed?
I just think thtere is the need to decrease the amount of categories used on this wikia. It should be kept simple. I also noticed multiple character categories for al the games, should just be "Video Game Character", if you ask me. TomasDerksen (talk) 14:48, September 3, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen

My last 2 cent about the category matter matter before I have to leave this temp. Computer:
If you ask me, A character should only have these categories:
The character category/categories.(Comicbook, One-shot, Movie, tv-show, video game). Race Category. (Human, Kree). The Gender Category. (Male, Female). Group Category. (SHIELD, HYDRA, United States Army, Congress). When part of shield, level Category. (LEvel 8, level 10). Profession Category. (Reporters, Criminal, Politician). Hero/Villian. And then we have a few other categories like: Extremis User or Unnamed Character that could be used. Categories like: "Multiple Languages (idk how we named it)", "blue Eyes", "Red Hair", "Killed by ....." should be removed.
Remember, this is just the way I think about it, it would decrease the amount of categories.TomasDerksen (talk) 15:01, September 3, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen

You agreed that the category of actors in non MCU films should only include Marvel movies, and now you say that it's better to have a single category, also you want a "Mentioned Only" category, that is just as outside of universe as "Character Killed by". If you have different opinions about the same topic, which one are you going to choose?
As for new categories, I think that the Actors, Characters, Crew Member , Items, Locations, Merchandise, Soundtrack and Weaponscategories can be automatically created for each new installement in the MCU, considering installements: Each single film, Each single TV series, the Marvel One-Shots as a single installement, and the Comics as a single installement. Of course, each category is going to be created if there is content to be added: for example, comics don't need actors, merchandise and soundtrack categories.
I think that most of our "traditional" categories must be kept, as I said in the heading for this section, I think the real urgent problem is the proliferation of new useless categories.Shabook (talk) 15:02, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
I changed my mind on that subject (Less Categories the better if you ask me). We also have the games as one installment. (We now got multiple character groups for games). If you check Pepper Potts you see Iron Man 1 game and iron man 2 game characters. I also said that Mentioned only is needed if they otherwise would not have any categories, but if you keep Male/female and race they will always have categories. Therefor it isn't needed to make sure a article has a category.
Like I said above, those are the only needed if you ask me. The Race and Gender Category makes sure that every Aticle has a category.
Cant we make (all admins) make a list of all accepted categories (ofc organised in subjects like: "Maintenance-Categories", "Location-Categories", "Character-Categories", "Installment-Categories"(with the last group I mean the 68you also mentioned, made automaticly").) and if people want to add new categories it should first be accepted by the admins (Like Bratpack also said). I will make an example of such a list in a blogpost.


Can someone explain to me the template idea? I'm never fussed around with them so I'm not quite sure how they would work and affect the problem. Coluanprime (talk) 16:16, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Also I agree with Shabook, I don't really see much of a problem with the traditional categories. There are some useless ones, but they can be deleted and most of the categories are somewhat useful.
About the templates, If I'm not mistaken, Uskok proposed to apply similar templates to this from the Assassin's Creed Wiki or this from the Final Fantasy Wiki to each article, for example, a template for the film Iron Man, with all characters, locations, items, etc., another for The Incredible Hulk, and so on...
The main problem is that each time you make a rename or delete an article of those kind of templates, it's going to appear in the list List of Wanted Pages unless each article where the template has been placed is given an edit, one by one.
We recently had that problem in the current Template:Navbox Actors, and Thurgood42 and myself had to edit all the more than 800 pages about actors to actually update the link from the template and remove the red link from the List of Wanted Pages. In fact, I think the that Navbox about actors is not useful, probably we should get rid of it to avoid the same problem next time an actor's page is renamed or deleted. Shabook (talk) 16:33, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, now I understand. It seems like that would clutter the page even more, at least with categories, they are all at the bottom and one does not have to scrool through them.Coluanprime (talk) 16:39, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the actor template should go. It causes more problems than it helps and takes a lot more time for the page to load which is problematic for users with slower internet connections.Thurgood42 (talk) 19:58, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, for instance, imagine that the Netflix TV series about Jessica Jones is confirmed to be titled Jessica Jones instead of AKA Jessica Jones. We rename the article, and try to change the link in every article that links to it. But when we look at the articles that link to it, besides the right ones that have an actual link, every actor article appears here because of the navbox, and the (as of now) 863 articles must be edited one by one...Shabook (talk) 02:39, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
Well, if nobody disagrees, the Template:Navbox Actors will be deleted tomorrow.Shabook (talk) 12:11, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, if Uskok doesn't disagree we can delete is.TomasDerksen (talk) 13:53, September 4, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
Uskok, or any other editor, everyone's opinion has the same valueShabook (talk) 13:56, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
So, we keep categories like "Iron Man 2 Characters" and "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Characters" but for characters from the comics and video games we would have only two categories, "Video game Characters" and "Comics Characters", right? And the five Marvel One Shots Characters categories would be replaced with only one Marvel One Shots Characters category? As for the Navbox Actors Template, I agree we should delete it, but before we do that, we should make several new templates (similar to the original template) for actors from each film. One template for actors from Iron Man 2, one for actors from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., etc. --UskokHail HYDRA! 15:11, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
The issue with merging the Marvel One-Shots crew categories into one was that many of the crew members were the same in many One-Shots, so there was no need for their articles to have 5 different categories for having the same job over and over again. On the other hand, the characters in the shorts are more unrelated, and only Coulson and Sitwell appear in more than one of the One-Shots, so in my opinion, that categories can stay separated, as an exception.
The reason for not applying that same exception with comic characters would be that major characters in comics mostly appear in the tie-in to their related film appearances, and comic exclusive characters usually have minor roles regarding the overall MCU.
As for the templates, I don't think we shoud have any. Splitting the actors template into one for each film just reduces the problem of red links from having to change the more than 800 actors articles to having to change 50 for a film, or 169 for Agents of SHIELD. If someone wants to check a list of the actors that appear in a particular installement, he can always use the different categories about actors, and/or the "Full Credits" pages. And for actors like Clark Gregg or Samuel L. Jackson, they would end up having around tten different navboxes. Therefore, I don't think we actually need any navbox about actors. Shabook (talk) 15:30, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Or this navbox, or no naxbox. No navbox takes both work and space on a page away, which is a benefit. Having 10 different navboxes wouldn't take away the redlink problem big time, and we do have multiple ways to finding the actors from a product. For the one-shot Characters/actors etc I rather see it as one category, because it are so low amounts of characters for each one-shot to begin with, there is no big use to have categories with only 4-5 actors in it, just have one with the 15-20 actors.TomasDerksen (talk) 16:18, September 4, 2014 (UTC)TomasDerksen
Given that the One-Shots have changed from being the "connective tissue" between movies (a place that is now for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) to being pretty much stand-alone stories, I think there is no much sense in putting together the characters under a single category. Besides, the categories have been created for a long time, I don't really see the need to unify them. Story-wise, the one-shots are becoming more and more unrelated to each other, the first ones were related, but the later (Agent Carter and All Hail the King) have nothing to do with each other, just like the potential one-shots teased about Crossbones, young Fury... On the other hand, from an out-of-universe POV they are very related, as they share most their crew members. But in my opinion, the characters should remain in different categories, as they are now. Shabook (talk) 18:34, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
So, basically, we are to keep the current movie characters categories, tv series characters categories, and marvel one shots characters categories, but all video game characters categories will be replaced with one universal video game characters category and we'll make one universal category for comic book characters, right? --UskokHail HYDRA! 11:53, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
Right, unless someone wants to keep the video games categories the way they are now. With the videogames I'm more neutral, given than most of them have already been classified as non canon. But as I've said before, where I see the problem is with the new categories that have been created these past few days. Shabook (talk) 14:01, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
It seems no one disagrees with your proposal. Very well, I'll start replacing the video games characters categories with one category. --UskokHail HYDRA! 13:04, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
I did the same with the comic characters category. Shabook (talk) 16:30, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
Also, if no one disagrees, tomorrow I'll start removing the Navbox about actors, before more actors for the second season of AoS are annouced. Shabook (talk) 17:53, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms