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.

New Policies

After the discussion about the need of different categories lead into the realization that this wiki needs a new set of general guidelines and policies, I'd like everyone to propose what kind of policies they feel necessary to help us deal with common situations that could appear in the wiki. Shabook (talk) 15:58, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

My first proposal is to update the current Layout Guide, that was written as a general guide to be consulted if needed when writing different types of in-universe articles, basically Characters, Locations, Items/Vehicles/Weapons, Wars and Events, although it is missing sections about Organizations, Teams, Projects and Races. We can use it as a basis, adding, among other thing, what could be considered a set of "general guidelines" for approving categories. Shabook (talk) 15:58, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Here is my version of a policy for appearances

  1. For characters who have appeared in 1-3 episodes of a TV show including mentions, they will not have an appearence section but will just have a detailed infobox section.
  2. For people who have appeared in 1 film/one-shot, same thing as above.
  3. For characters who have appeared in multiple film/one-shots but no TV show appearences/mentions, they will not have an appearences section, just a infobox listing.
  4. For characters who have appeared in multiple film/one-shots and 1-3 TV show appearences/mentions, they will not have an appearences section, just a infobox listing.
  5. For characters who have appeared in one film/one-shot and and 1-3 episodes of a tv show it will function like listing (1).
  6. For characters who appeared in multiple films/one-shots and 3+ episodes of a tv show including mentions, they will get an appearances section and the infobox will include film/one-shots and the title of the TV show but not the individual episodes.
  7. For characters who have appeared in 3+ episodes of a TV show the infobox will only list the title of the show and the appearace section will list individual episodes including mentions.

Comments? Suggestions? Coluanprime (talk) 22:54, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is to simplify it, characters will get an appearances section if they appear in more than 3 episodes of a TV series (to avoid saturating the infobox) and/or they appear in more than a specific number of different media (the number can be consensuated) to have an in-universe chronology of the appearances of the character. Shabook (talk) 23:26, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

We need add to the guidelines a section that describes how to properly link to dates and do references. Dates should be written like this [[1940s#1945|1945]]. The reference name needs to be uniform. It think the initials is the best way followed by the season and episode number. Movies like this <ref name "CATWS">''[[Captain America: The Winter Soldier]]''</ref> and series like this <ref name "AoSs1e1">''[[Pilot|Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: 1.01: Pilot]]''</ref>. Also I think that some pages have too many references. When there are five paragraphs on the same film do we really need to reference each one. I think a reference should be added only when the content of one film or episode is finished and another one starts or at the end of each header section.Thurgood42 (talk) 17:55, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed. The articles about locations I've been writing lately all use the same format for the references, and only at the end of a section or when the reference is going to change, just like you suggested. Maybe the format for Agents of SHIELD could be AoS101 to better match the actual text, so that it could be easily remembered. Shabook (talk) 18:12, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
That works. I think I will start going through the pages and update the references if you can change the guidelines. I noticed the over referencing on some characters like Iron Man and Brock Rumlow.Thurgood42 (talk) 18:26, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
The references can be updated, but it's better to wait a few days until having more feedback and opinions, and have a full list of the policies that people feel they need to be implemented before formally writing them. Shabook (talk) 18:44, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
Every important information, and that means every information, needs to be referenced. What if some comic book event happens during the events of the film but isn't shown on the film? Therefore, in such case (and there are many such cases on the wiki) the article needs to have a film reference, a comic book reference, and again a film reference. Therefore, every paragraph needs to be referenced.--UskokHail HYDRA! 16:23, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
And why not every word then? You can see an example of changes of references within the same section, or within the same paragraph here: New Mexico#Thor's Exile, without needing to reference each and every paragraph. General Wikipedia, and many wikis I consulted do it this way, because this is the way references are written in published media (books and encyclopedias), and even official guides for writing references say that the references go at the end of the referenced "text" (not paragraph). Therefore, I don't see the reason why this particular wiki has to be different and over-reference every paragraph. Shabook (talk) 16:40, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
This should be voted on. Thurgood42 (talk) 16:58, September 12, 2014 (UTC)

About the only two suggestions I would recommend is not having color info boxes that stands for the individual's group or allegiance (The Avengers, HYDRA, S.H.I.E.L.D. ect) like other wikis do and maybe have a section for description or layout of a location on Location pages.Professor Ambrius (talk) 19:08, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

How can a reader know from which source the information presented in the paragraph comes if the paragraph isn't referenced?--UskokHail HYDRA! 16:58, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Easy, a reference tag covers all the above until encountering the previous reference tag. In other words, all text between the last </ref> and the next <ref> is covered by that "next </ref>". Shabook (talk) 17:04, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
And how can a reader know that? Not every visitor of this Wiki is a die hard MCU fan to know what happened in which MCU product.--UskokHail HYDRA! 17:08, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
As I said before, because it has nothing to do with the MCU, it is the way that published works are written, with references at the end of the referenced work. If "a reader" actually reads something from the beginning, either an article or section, all the text he reads will be referenced by the first reference he comes across. Shabook (talk) 17:16, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of works you're reading but my university professors have taught me that every paragraph needs to be referenced.--UskokHail HYDRA! 17:21, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
That is valid when there are direct quotations of published works by other authors. A wiki is not a direct quotation, as editors describe facts and events with their own words. Take a look at a couple of random pages in Wikipedia, and tell me if you see references in each paragraph... Shabook (talk) 17:28, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Quotations or no quotations, every paragraph needs to be referenced. And honestly, I don't give a .... about Wikipedia. Their rules mean nothing to us.--UskokHail HYDRA! 17:35, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to know how this Wiki looked before I came here? It was a carbon copy of the Marvel Movies Wiki, with every article written from the real-world perspective, with no references, no sources, with subsections titled after the films, with no mentions of any tie-in material, etc. And I changed that and made this Wiki look like something decent. And now you want it to take one step back toward the chaos that ruled before.--UskokHail HYDRA! 17:48, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
I know very well how this wiki looked, I've seen many of the former versions of articles saved in their history, and none is discrediting or disregarding all the work you've done here, so please don't use that argument to disregard the validity of this proposal. It is as simple as what Thurgood42 said at the beginning of his proposal, many articles are over-referenced, and simplyfing that is not "a step back to the chaos". Shabook (talk) 17:57, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
This "simplifying" deletes the sources from the places where they need to be. And that is a step back.--UskokHail HYDRA! 18:08, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Everything is sourced. If you don't want to see that, then I cannot do nothing. Shabook (talk) 18:14, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Imagine that this is some famous painting, say Mona Lisa. With your way of conservation, that painting would be full of holes. With my way of conservation, the painting stays just as it should be.--UskokHail HYDRA! 18:24, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Imagine that this is some famous painting, say Mona Lisa. With your way of signing the painting, that painting would be full of Da Vinci's signatures. With this (not "my") way of signing, the painting would be clear and the signature would only be when needed. Shabook (talk) 18:33, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Bad example, because Mona Lisa isn't signed.--UskokHail HYDRA! 18:36, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Actually, good example, how can "a reader" know that Da Vinci was his author if the actual painting is not referenced? Given that you're not going be convinced no matter what, and this wiki has taken a good step towards democracy, I think that, as Lowriders said a while before, a vote is needed for this. Shabook (talk) 18:42, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Something I just realized, given that this discussion is to give feedback on the new policies for the wiki, the answer to your question on how a reader could know that the reference tags serve to cover all the above text until encountering the previous reference tag (text between last </ref> and next <ref>) is easy. A reader could know that if he asks it because it will be written in the policy... Shabook (talk) 19:03, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Shabook on this topic. Twenty years ago when I was in college, every paragraph was not referenced, only those that had two different sources within it. I wrote a sentence for an article once where I interrupted the thought with a reference from a different source (I think it was about Providence and I interrupted with a CA:TWS reference.) It looked fine and then the thought continued. I haven't seen any confusion on that article. I think there are too many references in certain articles, especially in movie characters that only appear in one movie ( like Killian or Malekith). In others like Cap or Widow, they don't skip around and their history is usually one source at a time, anyway, having loads of references to the same film seems redundant.Bratpack (talk) 19:48, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Just how many visitors do you think actually reads the Manual of Style page and Policies? To ensure something like that, we would have to change the automatic Welcome message into something like this.--UskokHail HYDRA! 10:10, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
I think every paragraph should be sourced. Shabook, I think you are goin a little overboard in getting rid of things. Just because you don't personally find it useful or interesting(Trivia) doesn't mean others don't. Extraneous does not mean bad.Coluanprime (talk) 19:44, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you turn this on me when: A- It was not my proposal to begin with, and B- It looks like I'm not the only that agrees with this proposal... Shabook (talk) 19:57, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
You seem now be it's main proponent and you are also an admin who has a lot more say in how this wiki is run.

I agree with the proposal to leave the sources as is. It shouldn't matter if there are "too many sources" or not. As a Wikia, we're meant to have reliable sources, no matter how many there are. And without the references, why should people believe what anyone writes on here? That in mind, I strongly suggest not removing/deleting any references. If needed be, take a look at other Wikia communities (like Wookiepedia, for example) for inspiration about how to handle references. Just my opinion on the matter. -- CJSFanOn Stranger Tides, Arkham City 20:47, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

I created a blog post to display the difference between the policies. The current New York City page is the way the proposed policy will be implemented to all articles. The blog post would be what the page will look like if the policy stays the same. As you can see The Avengers is referenced 42 times. Thurgood42 (talk) 21:27, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

Which is the exact number of times the movie should be referenced, if the article is so big. With the old referencing system the Wiki looks professional, and with your system the quality of the Wiki would be severely downgraded.--UskokHail HYDRA! 12:30, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

JFan, I have looked at other wikias and Memory Alpha and Stargate Command do it the way I am proposing. Those are very large and popular wikias with over 37,000 and 10,000 pages respectively involving hundreds of episodes and many films each just like this one. Thurgood42 (talk) 01:02, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion in the Comments section.--UskokHail HYDRA! 10:04, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Random Actor's Trivia

I'd lik to propose reducing those pointless trivia facts in the actor's pages. Given that this is the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki, I think those sections about actors working together should be reduced to simply point other films where they worked with actors ONLY if they've worked together in the MCU. For example, it is interesting that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen played husband and wife in Godzilla, and now they play brother and sister in Avengers: Age of Ultron; but I don't think it is relevant for the purpose of this wiki that an actor from Captain America: The First Avenger appeared with an actor of Guardians of the Galaxy outside the MCU, given that they even haven't appeared together within the MCU... Shabook (talk) 21:02, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Not agreed.TomasDerksen (talk) 21:44, September 11, 2014 (UTC)TomasDersksen
Agreed.--Blaublau94 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 21:09, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
Agreed.Coq87rouge (talk) 21:13, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
Agreed.Bratpack (talk) 21:39, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
Not agreed. If we're gonna have articles about actors made of only one sentence, then why have such articles at all? Let's just delete all articles on actors and have links to Wikipedia.--UskokHail HYDRA! 09:31, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
First, because not every actor gets a Wikipedia article, second, obviously not every actor has the same information available, third, if there is need to add trivia, there is in many cases trivia available related to the MCU. I added, for instance, that Cobie Smulders was recommended to Joss Whedon for the role of Maria Hill by Alysson Hannigan, that Ty Simpkins was called personally by Robert Downey Jr. to announce him he obtained his role in IM3, that Lloyd Kaufman appeared in cameo in GotG because he is the mentor of James Gunn, and there are lots and lots more....
Also, you've been adamant against adding info unrelated to the MCU to articles, such as when the categories about actors in other comics films were split between Marvel and DC, and this is just another example. Alexis Denisof's previous work with Joss Whedon is what made him being cast in the MCU, but Karen Gillan's previous work with Toby Jones had nothing to do at all with the MCU...
Besides, there are four agreements and one disagreement, so if you feel the need to put a vote... Shabook (talk) 16:41, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. That's the point of Trivia, it doesn't have to be revelavant. Just because something isn't needed, doesn't mean it isn't nice to have.Coluanprime (talk) 19:23, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
Pia Shah is one example of an actress who doesn't have a Wikipedia page but has one here. The biggest fear is that people will go wild and play "Degrees of Separation" with the Trivia Section, linking people in the MCU to justify their edits. I hope to keep this wiki concise, like it was when I first arrived. I don't fear expansion, just unnecessary edits and trolling...Bratpack (talk) 19:35, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't just the opposite reason the one used to propose reducing the number of categories? A reason can't be applied on a subject when exactly the opposite reasoning is applied in another.
Then we can make a category for actors that worked in Joss Whedon's previous shows, a category for actors that worked in James Gunn's previous films, a category for actors also appearing in Lost, a category for actors also appearing in Once Upon a Time, a category for actors also appearing in Modern Family, a category for actors also appearing in Arrow, a category for actors also appearing in Nolan's Batman Trilogy, a category for actors also appearing in The Lord of the Rings...
Also we could add the actor's birthdate, previous and future filmography, marital status...
Those topics are not relevant, just like the those random trivia facts. That something can be added doesn't mean that it should be added... Shabook (talk) 19:37, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless the actor appeared in the same MCU film I don't find it relevant that they appeared in anything else together.Thurgood42 (talk) 19:52, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm glad that you don't find it relevant. Many others do. I think it is interesting that Chris Evans and Scarlett Johannssen have appeared in 3 movies together enen before the Avengers. At the time, you said that the problem with categories was that it created a lot of work with the nav-boxes. This doesn't even require extra work on your part. Coluanprime (talk) 20:05, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson have appeared together in the MCU, actually, 2 of their 5 on-screen are in the MCU. That's an example of worthy trivia. But IMHO, that Arnim Zola and a random nurse from Thor: The Dark World appeared together in other film is not. Shabook (talk) 20:10, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. That is good trivia and will stay. Michael Douglas and Glenn Close appearing in Fatal Attraction is not and has no place here.Thurgood42 (talk) 21:06, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the proposal was misunderstood. It is not about removing the whole trivia sections, absolutely not, simply sticking the trivia facts about being in other films to actors who actually have been in the same film within the MCU. That's why I gave the examples about Aaron Taylor-Johnson with Elizabeth Olsen, Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson, Joss Whedon and his multiple frequent collaborators or James Gunn and his multiple frequent collaborators, and many more. That is worthy and interesting trivia, and directly related to the MCU. Shabook (talk) 00:39, September 12, 2014 (UTC)

Video Games Counterparts

I've been thinking about this for a while now, how about creating an entire new page for the videogame counterparts that contradicts the cannon character's existence in the in the MCU?

For example: a page for

  • Glenn Talbot/Video Game
  • Jack Taggert/Video Game
  • Wolfgang von Strucker/Video Game

and all the others...

We would'n have to summarize everyting of the videogame character in a couple lines in the trivia section (since the wikia police is to maintain everything MCU related, even non cannon video games articles) and this info would not be mixed with the caracter's actual cannon information, just like in the Wolfgang von Strucker page (that we all agree that is a complete mess). It would be added a "See also" section on the caracter's page with the link to the video game counterpart character.--Blaublau94 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 00:07, September 12, 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but maybe the name must be reworked to be applied to every non-canon versions and not only from video games for example, the non-canon Malekith and Kurse from Captain America & Thor: Avengers! Although the videogames are the most recurring non-canon installements, this way we can cover everything with the same format. Shabook (talk) 00:12, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Exactly!--Blaublau94 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk) 00:14, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. What's wrong with a few sentences in the trivia section? These proposed new articles would just increase the ammount of work we have to do and that work is already too big.--UskokHail HYDRA! 09:39, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Uskok on this one (the previous one, nah). I think it should just be in the Trivia Section since 90% of the MCU video games are not Canon. Creating purposefully a whole page of noncanonical work might be confusing to new readers who already (as I did) question the logic of having it in this wiki. ( I understand the reasoning now, but I stayed; how many readers are in and out, without waiting for an explanation?) I am conservative on this change, desiring that things remain the same...Bratpack (talk) 19:37, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
The current layout, adding them as a subsection in the non-canon installement where they appeared works too if correctly done. Glenn Talbot's article was moved when the canon version of Talbot was announced for Agents of SHIELD, and it is complete. That's the idea I defended back then. Maybe the problem is just adding small paragraphs, like the ones that were added for Thor: The Dark World - The Official Game, who were just created to add a bunch of minor articles. Shabook (talk) 19:47, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I like Memory Alpha's method of having an "Apocrypha" section for non-canon material, including versions that contradict canon or each other. The "Apocrypha" sections are kept in an appendix and aren't written in-universe. It's similar to the Trivia sections method used here, but it allows for more details without creating confusion. That said, this method may be a bad fit here since some articles would consist entirely of "apocrypha".
Sample: --Cap'n Calhoun (talk) 15:10, March 24, 2015 (UTC)


References (Admin Votes)

As the previous vote about user Thurgood42's proposal respect the referencing guidelines ended in a draw, a Two-round system will be applied, where the administrators of the Wiki will vote for or against the proposal. All voting admins must have been active members of the community during the time period of the last voting.
As usual, you can vote for, or against this proposal adding your signatures. Shabook (talk) 18:06, September 20, 2014 (UTC)


  1. --Greater good (talk) 18:58, September 20, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Bratpack (talk) 19:57, September 20, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Shabook (talk) 20:08, September 20, 2014 (UTC)


  1. TomasDerksen (talk) 06:06, September 21, 2014 (UTC)


We are admins, but that doesn't mean we can make decisions for the whole community. The entire community vote should be repeated, because that's how democracy works. When no president is elected in the first round of elections, the second round is organized, and everyone votes in it, not just the selected few.--UskokHail HYDRA! 11:22, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

P.S. The referencig guideline says only:"Every bit of information that is provided in the wikia should be cited. It makes it verifiable, easier to track and makes it easier to summarize the articles and let it link to the rest."--UskokHail HYDRA! 11:39, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Uskok, I think that everyone should be able to vote, too.--Dr.Who1997I am Groot! 12:45, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Well, obvioulsy people who voted against would want to repeat the vote, and people who voted for would not. But I was told to organize the votes, and based in how previous votes or decissions have been made, this is the fairest outcome.
Uskok, we've all seen you imposing your criteria as "admin decissions" many many times, often without listening other users' opinions or accepting feedback. For example, you deleted the Resurrection of Phil Coulson article or the List of Minor Characters without asking anybody, but were forced to restore them when people complained of that unilateral decission.
Also, you changed overnight the way locations were displayed in the different installments, deleting articles and forbidding their creation, and I don't remember you discussing, asking people their opinion, etc.; you simply changed it unilaterally. It also happened with the articles about upcoming characters, you simply decided to forbid them without consulting anyone.
And now, you try to impose your method as the official, when it had never been discussed and nobody else than you had used it.
People have had the opportunity to express their opinions and vote consequently, something that you haven't always allowed... Shabook (talk) 13:04, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

This isn't over, because we will reach an agreement, or we will continue accusing each other until Judgment Day without doing anything useful on this Wiki for the rest of our lives.--UskokHail HYDRA! 10:45, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

Composers and music artists

Separate Galleries and New Gallery Categories

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.