Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki:Community Portal/Archive V

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.

Removing Video Game/Deleted Material Articles[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Wont be removed

Hello fellow Wikians. After the proccess of the debate in which if the LEGO articles and pages should stay, I came upon the idea and notion that we should remove all character pages, but actually allow the game pages to remain.

For example, we would exclude Madame Hydra, but not the Captain America: Super Soldier page, or Ymir and Thor: God of Thunder (same with mobile games too). The idea of allowing these characters to remain with their own pages in the Wiki honestly makes no sense. While, yes, the games are based on the MCU timeline as tie-ins, which is why they deserve their own pages, their characters do not. Adding them is not only a waste of time as it is also a waste making categories for video games-only characters and adding characters alongside other characters.

Also, I suddenly stumbled upon the Most Wanted page and saw that pages for characters like Dominic Fortune exist, despite, as the show never aired, this character basically does not even exist in the MCU. I know it is categorized under Cancelled media, but I don't see the point of having a character that virtually does not exist in the universe, so he, and other cancelled characters, should not have their own pages.

I wanted to see the other users' opinions about this, as well as the admins (although I know some want the game articles to stay).- User:Draft227 August 09th, 2016 19:39

I knew that the Lego situation would open a dangerous gate... Regarding Most Wanted. It's an entirely new situation, as it is the first cancelled media of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, I shall remind you the purpose of a Wiki (not only of this wiki): To collect any and all information about a specific topic in the most comprehensive way. Marvel even released a character description for him, so I see no reason to delete that information from this wiki. Our goal is to collect and share information, not to restrain it. You said that it has a template to signal that it is cancelled media, so that's more than enough to clarify its status.--Shabook (talk) 22:57, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of pages for these characters. I prefer having their biography in the game pages, so that it is still shown for those who play the game, but not for people who search for a character hoping it is there.
About the most wanted situation: No reason to remove any of it.TomasDerksen (talk) 13:46, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that character pages for video game people are redundant. As said above, those characters technically do not even exist within MCU, although the products that featured them are tie-in materials. My opinion is the same method I suggested in the last weeks: The character pages should be removed and the character bios should be covered either in the main article of the product (video game, cancelled media, etc.) or in a sub-page like "Thor: God of Thunder/Characters". Shabook is right about the fact that wikis must collect any relevant information on their topics; however, I believe in the case of these (or cancelled) products, only the product itself deserves its own page; its characters do not. Silacko (talk) 17:03, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if this may sound rude or blunt, not my intention, but the removal of pages about the characters, actors or any other concept that may have appeared in Most Wanted or any other project similarly cancelled before release is, simply put, not up for discussion.
As for videogames, well, they are not my cup of tea, so I don't mind a rework of the pages.--Shabook (talk) 17:44, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

No apologies needed. I'm not very insistent on removing the character pages of the cancelled media. I just wanted to state my opinion on this. Silacko (talk) 17:57, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Silacko's idea, and you do not sound rude. I just found it strange why MW actors still have their pages while people like Patrick Wilson who would play someone in Ant-Man had his page removed. Isn't the case similar here?
Also, sorry for thinking the deletion of the articles was up for discussion, but since you brought the games, should we talk more about it? So far, from the four people involved in this discussion, all dislike the idea of keeping characters, and I know many more do from other pages. Draft227

Patrick Wilson was hired to play a role that, ultimately, he didn't film anything at all, and he doesn't appear in Ant-Man. Oded Fehr actually portrayed a role. Totally different cases.--Shabook (talk) 21:12, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

This place is uncharacteristically non-hyperverbal. Last time we were discussing the Lego pages, a notification was sent by one of the admins. Maybe that would help.

Anyways, I dropped by to propose also the removal of the "Video games only" sub-sections in the relationship sections of the characters. Silacko (talk) 05:50, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

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

Staff Members[]

Following the Staff Survey that we conducted in July, polls reveal that a majority of voters believe this wiki could benefit from newer Staff members. As such, we will begin a process to choose new Content Moderators. In case you need to, you can consult the whole Staff Survey here and some of its conclusions here.

Since the last election in this wiki, Wikia has released new groups of User rights, including Content Moderators, whose tools and functions can be consulted at the Help:User rights. The tools they have would allow new Content Moderators to protect and edit pages that had needed to be protected, rename images, delete or undelete articles and files, rollback undesired edits and patrol new pages. As such, an ideal content moderator should be an user whose edits are trustworthy, and, especially, that knows, follows and respects this wiki's policies and standards.

Following the release of these ranks, that are an intermediate step between a regular user and a full-fledged administrator, Wikia encourages promotion of users to these medium ranks before a promotion to administrators. So, in the proper section below, editors will be able to nominate the users they think are worthy of becoming new content moderators.

On the other hand, during the staff survey there were also comments, some in first person, about the possibility of demotions of some of the current staff members. In the proper section below, you will also be able to comment about this possibility.

Don't forget to sign your comments, and thank you to everyone for your participation!--Shabook (talk) 11:30, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

Content Moderators Nominations[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Nominations process is over

In this section, editors will be able to nominate up to TWO users to become Content Moderators. As usual, both Nominators and Nominees will need to be members of this Community before the announcement of this whole process. Also, you cannot nominate yourself.

Keep in mind that this process is very serious, not just a popularity contest, so, together with your nomination, you have to give a few reasons why you think the nominated users deserves the new rank.--Shabook (talk) 11:30, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

Hello users and staff members. I would like to nominate Dr.Who1997 to become a content moderator. This user has stuck around this wiki for quite a while now, and has an unshakable passion for the content of this site. He is a diligent worker and is willing put himself forth to help out whenever possible. Thank you for your time. ~Silverstream (talk) 04:38, August 24, 2016 (UTC)Silverstream

Since Dr.Who has already been nominated I will only place my second name here: AKA S.I.H. Both of the have been here for a while, put a lot of time in to the wiki and are users of which I know you can ask for stuff to get it done. They are in my eyes both examples of perfect editors, which deserves a promotion.TomasDerksen (talk) 22:20, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

Hi, first of all I'd like to thank TomasDerksen for nominating me as a Content Moderator; I really appreciate it. And I'd like to nominate Nerdtastic1221 because he has proven to be a reliable user of the MCU wiki and he cares about the quality and usefulness of things. If I remember correctly he once said that he thinks that images should be uploaded if they are of use to the wiki and that has guided me most of the time when I upload images(then again it could have been another user but I'm 90% sure it was him).AKA S.I.H (talk) 03:40, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I'd like to nominate Blaublau94. He's a valuable member of the MCU wiki, who not only puts a lot of work into this wiki in form of edits, but also provides us with self-made logos, which are incredibly accurate and a great addition to articles. Not to mention that he's also been a member for almost three years. Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 11:11, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

Considering the amount of times that articles have to be protected from him, policies have needed to be created because of his behavior (3RR rule, article creation, moving policy...) and the times he has been (or should have been) blocked for doing what he wants in the articles ignoring and disrespecting this wiki's policies, I'm not exactly sure that he follows the "user that knows, follows and respects this wiki's policies and standards" prerequisite...--Shabook (talk) 11:35, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know that..Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 12:05, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

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

Staff Demotions[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

No comments in more than a week

In this section, editors will be able to comment on the possibility of the demotion of some of the current Staff Members. If you wish, you can consult the original comments at the Staff Survey here.

Given the delicate nature of this topic we ask you to give your reasons in a respectful manner. Comments lacking an actual reason will be deleted without further notice.--Shabook (talk) 11:30, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

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

Pages renames[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Apliance of Wiki Policy voted a few months ago.

I would like to propose a poll to restructure the way we name our character pages, because some of them make no sense, these are some of them that feel very weird for exemple:

Ronan the Accuser -> Ronan
- "the Accuser" is just a title, the character's name is just Ronan, "the Accuser" is not a name... not in the movie, neither in the comics.
Drax the Destroyer -> Drax
- "the Destroyer" is just a title, the character's name is just Drax, "the Destroyer" is not a name... not in the movie, neither in the comics.
Korath the Pursuer -> Korath
- "the Pursuer" is just a title (it's not even said in the movie), the character's name is just Korath, "the Pursuer" is not a name ... not in the movie, neither in the comics (and he is not a kree).
Baron Mordo -> Karl Mordo
- "Baron" is just a title, The character's surname is Mordo, "Baron" is not his name... not in the movie, neither in the comics, and for all we know he is not even a Baron on the MCU.
Rocket Raccoon -> Rocket
- In the comics that's the character's name, but that's not the case in the MCU, here his name is just Rocket, he is not called "Rocket Raccoon" in the movie at all, just like Frank Simpson (comics) is Will Simpson (MCU), Ulysses Klaw (comics) is Ulysses Klaue (MCU), Peggy Lang (comics) is Maggie Lang (MCU) and Zen-Whoberis (comics) are Zehoberei (MCU).

I'm pretty sure that I'm forgetting some of the pages I think it would be better if they were renamed, but that's it for now. What do you guys think, please leave your suggestions. --Blaublau94 (talk) 23:05, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

I agree, except for Rocket. Some time ago, it was explained to me that, while he was only called Rocket, he was promoted as "Rocket Raccoon". But yeah, titles shouldn't be in the article name. Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 03:53, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dr.Who1997, but what do you mean by promoted? --Blaublau94 (talk) 04:18, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

How about you respect this wiki policies like everybody else, as you've been told in the TWO YEARS that you have proposed, more than ten times, to do this? Per user vote, this wiki uses the codenames from the Marvel comics whne available for a character, no matter the nature of the codename. "Captain" America, and especially, "Doctor" Strange are titles in addition to the codename, and they are NOT going to be removed. Sorry, but no, the policy is there, most users voted for it, and it is going to be applied.--Shabook (talk) 06:36, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

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

Articles for Movies with Uncomfirmed Titles[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Case ny Case

Alright, so I've only been contributing to the wiki for a few months but I'm just wondering why there is no article for Avengers 4, but there is an article for Spider-Man: Homecoming 2.

I'm guessing the reason is because the name isn't final and just a placeholder, but the same goes for Spider-Man 2. Plus, I double-checked the naming policy and didn't find anything that is against articles like this (but if I missed something then please let me know).

And if the reason is because of a lack of information, well I personally disagree over it's lack of existence. The wiki is meant to give information on stuff like this and I feel it's our responsibility to give that information, even if it's small. So please, if you're an admin, see if there's anything we can do about this.SwagMasterDbl (talk) 09:01, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

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

Citizenship Template[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Implemented

Based on this conversation I had with Uskok, I'm here to show you guys the Citizenship Template I build (based on the Nationality Template from DCEU Wikia). It is very simple to use. For example:

Just add {{Citizenship|USA}} on the Character's Template to have the country's flag and the country's demonym automatically: American

Since we don't have any Citizenship categories because we don't want to be so "Earth-centric" I have also added Asgardian, Nova, and Kree "flags" because those are the alien citizenships he have for now (if there is another one I forgot to add, please tell me).

Here on the template is the list with all the codes of the countries and here is an example of how this new template should look. Please feel free to add your opinions about the Template and its changes below. --Blaublau94 (talk) 15:12, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely love this idea (and I always though that indeed, we should have a category for nationalities - it wouldn't be Earth-centric, it would be factual. Aliens having no citizenship it's not a reason for humans not to have one). You put a lot of effort into creating it, great job man! We should definitely use it! - Draft227

Thanks man! --Blaublau94 (talk) 17:59, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

I love his idea too and I applaud you for the work you have put into it. I think it would be a great addition.--Greater Good (talk) 17:25, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate it --Blaublau94 (talk) 17:59, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

I really love the idea! It's a good way to add detail. A shame there's no flag for Jotun, Svartalf, Vanir, or Sakaaran. SonOfAres1 (talk) 18:21, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I just added the Dark Elfves. --Blaublau94 (talk) 20:14, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

I also like the idea and I'm all for it. Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 19:54, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Blaublau94 (talk) 20:14, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

Excellent idea and flawless job. Well done, it really give the Template a nice touch. -- Elledy92 (talk) 22:49, January 3, 2017 (CET)

Thank you man! --Blaublau94 (talk) 23:46, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

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

Categorisation[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Enhanced Individuals created

I believe Patriot's case urge to create a macro-category such as Enhanced humans, where we could sub-categorise Category:Super Soldier Serum Users and similar characters. --HarveyWallbanger (talk) 09:55, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the idea but I think the category should be named "Enhanced Individuals". That way we can also put the Cyborgs category in that category because the Cyborgs category also includes non-humans.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 11:39, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you!--HarveyWallbanger (talk) 11:43, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

I also agree on that. However, the category should be named "Enhanced Humans" rather than "individuals", because enhanced individuals would suggest both humans with powers as well as all inhumans, and maybe even alien species. By naming it "Enhanced Humans", we can constrain the category to humans (or human mutates) only, which is not a "species" taken into account in this wiki. Silacko (talk) 18:30, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

The Inhumans were biologically empowered, but the Enhanced individuals were artificially enhanced. The Inhumans don't belong to that category. And why should we exclude alien species? I'm not saying we should put the entire species in that category, only the enhanced aliens.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 13:50, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're actually right about including enhanced aliens (like Nebula, I presume.) They match the definition after all. I should revise my statement. I think we could have a category also for Enhanced Humans, including human beings that were not born with supernatural abilities but acquired them later on; something like "Human Mutates", because we didn't ever split powered humans (Blizzard, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, Absorbing Man, etc) from regular human beings, so far in this wiki. Just a suggestion, not that it's a vital one. I support your idea as well. Silacko (talk) 14:16, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

We don't separate humans from "aliens". From the Kree point of view, humans are aliens. Having one category for "Enhanced Individuals" is simpler than having multiple categories for Enhanced Humans, Enhanced Kree, Enhanced Luphomoids, etc.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 15:29, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else?--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 14:20, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of an "Enhanced Individuals" Category, i have no problem with that. --Elledy92 (talk 19:11, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think "Enhanced Individuals" is the best choice.--Greater Good (talk) 12:29, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

I agree, a category for "Enhanced Individuals" should be made.AKA S.I.H (talk) 21:09, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

I agree too. --HarveyWallbanger (talk) 08:52, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the need for it, but it is not somthing I am againstTomasDerksen (talk) 12:14, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

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

Affiliation Template[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Implemented

Guys, I did another Template, now for the Affiliations, based on the Citizenship Template. Please take a look and tell me what do you think: Affiliation Template. And here is an example of how it shoul look.--Blaublau94 (talk) 07:28, February 8, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of this idea. You really go the extra mile with these templates.--Greater Good (talk) 12:31, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!--Blaublau94 (talk) 18:48, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

I like it. This is really an admirable job you are doing.--Elledy92 (talk) 14:13, February 9, 2017 (UTC+1)

Thanks man!--Blaublau94 (talk) 18:48, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

I like and support the idea. That's a great effort, especially the different variants of SHIELD and HYDRA icons. Silacko (talk) 13:16, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate you guys.--Blaublau94 (talk) 18:48, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

Well, since I no opposite opinions, I will start applying the Template, and I really gonna need your help. Feel free to make the edits.--Blaublau94 (talk) 19:24, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

I've got a question, though. Which HYDRA variant should be used for which cell? I know Ward's icon, and the antique society icons, but I can't differentiate the other variants. Thanks. Silacko (talk) 20:07, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

The information here should serve as a guide. Do you have any specific doubt?--Blaublau94 (talk) 22:40, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

I was just trying to make an explicit match between icons and cells, but I wasn't sure about Malick's, Strucker's, Whitehall's cells and the round table. I've inferred the following matching; is this correct?

HYD1 <-- 19th century, HYDRA Society
HYD2 <-- WW2, Red Skull's HYDRA
HYD3 <-- Malick's cell
HYD4 <-- Centipede Project
HYD5 <-- no idea honestly
HYD6 <-- Ward's cell
HYD7 <-- HYDRA Uprising, SHIELD cell
HYD? <-- Round table, Strucker, Winter Soldier program, Whitehall?

I made the list based on the "Members" section of the HYDRA page, but couldn't match most of the cells. Silacko (talk) 05:47, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, niceTomasDerksen (talk) 12:17, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

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

States[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

States are looked at case by case

Hello people, I stumbled upon the fact that we have states of the US on the Wiki but not those of other countries. I propose we add the states of other countries we've seen through the MCU. Since we aren't alien-centric in the Wiki, I don't think we should be US-centric when it comes to the states; we go to the states category and only see states of the USA. We should others like the state of Rio de Janeiro (Rio's state) or New South Wales (Sydney's state). - Draft227 (talk) 16:06, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see no point in this. Articles will be virtually identical to the ones of the main city, We already have some of them for countries like Canada or Italy because of their importance, and it is something that has to be decided on a case by case basis.--Shabook (talk) 18:23, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

Nah, as long as a regio (out side of the US ofcourse) is not mentioned by name (Like Tuscany was), they should only be made if a lot has happened there. By example, if not just Rio de Janeiro has been featured, but also a few other cities in the state.TomasDerksen (talk) 12:19, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

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

New articles[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Separate articles created for Framework-exclusive characters, but not for characters uploaded into it.

Since we are conflicting with the HYDRA situation, I am thinking now, should we create entire new articles for the characters and the organizations for this Framework reiality and leave the established ones the way they are?--Blaublau94 (talk) 12:12, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

For now, I'll say we should wait and see. For the four characters that are trapped in the Framework, definitely no. It's part of their own history/biography...--Shabook (talk) 12:30, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Not new page, because they are the same characters trapped in a fictional reality, and not counterpart from a different universe. But we should add their new personal feature from the fictional universe, with the appropriate tag --Elledy92 (talk) 13:36, February 22, 2017 (UTC+1)

Another page should be made for characters that are not trapped in the Framework but that are part of it. Such as HYDRA or Ward. AKA S.I.H (talk) 13:02, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with AKA, Ward and HYDRA are created in the computer, but Mack, Coulson and so on have their own minds inside it, so their profiles should be expanded to include what they do in the Framework, while we should make a Grant Ward (Framework) profile. Nerdtastic1221 (talk) 13:14, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

For the real people whose minds are trapped in the Framework we shouldn't make articles, that's obvious. Just put a new subsection in their biographies with the title "Trapped in the Framework", or "Life in the Framework". However, if, and that's a very big IF until April, if they encounter someone who is already dead in the real world but whom Aida had "resurrected" in the Framework (like Grant Ward), should we make new articles for them, that's what Blaublau is asking. I think we should. We already have articles for the LMDs, so we should also have articles for those programs. If Ward exists within the Framework, we'll name his article Grant Ward (Program), to distinguish him from his real-world counterpart. The same works for organizations and locations. We know HYDRA exists so we should name that article HYDRA (Program), the Triskelion should be Triskelion (Program), etc. But that's only if those programs all reappear in the next episode. If they don't, a small mention in the real locations and organizations should be enough. Does anyone have some other suggestions? --Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 13:16, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

We should use (Framework) instead of (Program) as tag.--Shabook (talk) 13:20, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.--Blaublau94 (talk) 13:23, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Similar point... Should the Aida vs May fight that occured inside the Framework be included on Aida's profile... Was she a digital recreation like Ward or did Aida plug herself into the Framework to fight May? Thoughts? Nerdtastic1221 (talk) 13:35, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

I think that wasn't Aida plugging herself into the Framework but a digital recreation. --Bridgetterocks (talk) 13:44, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Or, maybe Aida, since she's a robot, can be in both the Framework and the real world at the same time. --Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 13:49, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Uskok. We didn't need to create Aida ver.2 when she was rebuilt. Similarly, I think we don't need a separate article for "Aida (Framework)". It is the same consciousness living both in the robotic body and in virtual reality. As for the tag, I agree with Shabook; "Framework" makes more sense than "Program" does. -Silacko (talk) 13:58, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Since there's not much more to add, I agree that we should just add sections to real people trapped in the Framework and create articles for "resurrected" people and organizations ( Grant Ward (Framework) and HYDRA (Framework)). Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 15:24, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

I see that this situation has already been settled, but how would we handle a situation in which multiple LMDs of a character are made, each one with different programming. For example, if another LMD of Mack is made, how would we distinguish between the new one and the one destroyed at the Playground? SonOfAres1 (talk) 18:14, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

The same way we handled the situation with two Aidas.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 18:20, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with the new creation of articles but also I would suggest add certain events on the Biography of dead characters, like Grant Ward... Legacy or something. And what about a Timeline (Framework) article?? --Marvelus (talk) February 22, 2017 (UTC)

I think since the Framework is essentially another reality, I think that a Timeline article specifically for the Framework would be appropriate Zalarath (talk) 22:16, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Glad to know you do agree :D. But what about the rest...--Marvelus (talk) February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Some of the dead characters already have the Legacy section (Ward, for example) and a small mention about their Framework counterparts is okay. I'm not sure about the Framework timeline, though. The Framework is a virtual reality, a 3D video game (like Second Life or the Matrix), nothing more. One more thing. DO NOT put the Framework characters', locations', or organiations' appearances in their real world counterparts Appearances sections. The Framework Ward is not the real Ward. The Framework Ward's appearance should not be listed in the real Ward's Appearances section. The Framework HYDRA is not the real HYDRA. The Framework Triskelion is not the real Triskelion. This is just like the case of an LMD and his/her human counterpart. If they don't appear in the same episode, the LMD's appearances are not listed as the human's appearances and vice versa. The same works for the real humans, organizations and locations and their Framework counterparts. --Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 19:25, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

Framework page can serve as timeline page. Maybe add a section Timeline or something like that --User:Assassin1and2 (talk) February 23, 2017 (UTC)

We'll see how the season develops before. Timeline is not this wiki's priority.--Shabook (talk) 22:43, February 23, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, will see... but it was a suggestion if it will be approved great! --Marvelus (talk) February 23, 2017 (UTC)

So.. from what I understood from Self Control, Daisy and Simmons were uploaded on their preexisting Framework bodies right? In this case Simmons is a deceased and Daisy is a HYDRA agent alongside her boyfiend Ward inside the Framework, until the "upload" happens. So now, the Real Daisy wakes up in HYDRA Daisy's body and Real Simmons wakes up in Dead Simmons' body inside the coffin. My questions are:

Should we make articles for them as well, since they are different characters the same way the Framework Ward is different from the Real Ward?
Should we create articles for the Teacher Coulson, HYDRA May, Rich Fitz like the Framework Ward since they are also different versions of those characters with totally different lives and backgrounds?

If so, this will clear the confusion on whether SHIELD May should be listed as a HYDRA agent. Example: An entire new article for the Framework versions (Teacher Coulson, HYDRA May, Rich Fitz, Dead Simmons, HYDRA Daisy and the already existing Framework Ward) with a new Background Section (for the Framework life they have as an A.I.) and a "Upload section" with the info as from the Real life character was uploaded in their bodies. What do you think?--Blaublau94 (talk) 23:08, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

There are too many possibilities to know before we see how the show actually treats this. We'll decide once the show returns. So far they have appeared for like 10 seconds each...--Shabook (talk) 23:16, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

I agree to create new articles for the Framework versions of the characters until their consciousnesses are uploaded to the machine. Though, as Shabook said, we know very little about each of them for now, so maybe we could wait until April. -Silacko (talk) 05:38, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

After some thinking, I'm worried that creating new article for every single character uploaded into the Framework might lead to some inconsistencies. Take HYDRA (Framework) for instance. Under the "Notable Members" section, should we include Melinda May (she's uploaded after all) or Melinda May (Framework) (who joined HYDRA in the first place)? Holden Radcliffe is another issue; he constantly entered and left the Framework, and currently he's in the Framework (despite being physically dead), so which part of his biography belongs to his actual self and which to his Framework counterpart? Silacko (talk) 06:13, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

A great reason not to rush. As we always should, Marvel acts and then we react; not the inverse order...--Shabook (talk) 12:19, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

In this case the Melinda May (Framework). Since She is the one who has the background of being a HYDRA agent and the real word May was just uploaded in her body. Radcliffe is a different issue. His Framework version is just an avatar, he doesn't have a different background a life story, it's just a digital body for him to work on the Framework... well, now that his is physically dead and his consciousness is permanently in the Framework, AIDA probably programed a "life without regret" for him. For this version of Radcliffe I think we should create an article.--Blaublau94 (talk) 12:54, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. This Radcliffe is the same as the one we've seen so far. His consciousness just isn't in his body anymore, but in a virtual reality. It's as if we created a new article for Ivanov's new body. Just waiting for the show to come back really is the best thing to do to avoid unnecessary confusion. Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 13:01, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Shabook and Dr.Who. We should wait. Better safe than sorry. Also, we should not make Framework counterparts articles for real people whose minds are trapped in the Framework. They are still real people, even though they are living in a dream. The Melinda May (Framework) example is not exactly a good one because as far as we know, HYDRA (Framework) was made/programmed after May entered the Framework. So technically, it was the real May who joined HYDRA (Framework) and Melinda May (Framework) probably never even existed. The same works for the Teacher Coulson, the rich Fitz and the currently unseen Mace. Knowing Aida he could be anything, from Supreme Hydra to an ordinary pizza delivery guy. The Framework Ward is a programmed character. As for Daisy and Simmons, even though it seems they took the places of their Framework counterparts, we shouldn't write anything until we see if that's true. Radcliffe and Agnes Kitsworth are probably living in the Framework just like Arnim Zola lived in his old computer. One other thing that needs to be discussed is categorizing. Aside from the living people within the Framework, everything else in it is not real. Therefore, should we catgorize Triskelion (Framework) as a location, or as a Framework Program, because that's what it is. Just a program in a video game. The same question applies to HYDRA (Framework) and Grant Ward (Framework).--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 14:08, March 3, 2017 (UTC)

Well, since now the episode is up, I think we can cantinue the conversation. I still think we should create entire new articles for the Framework characters (even Jemma and Skye) and contine their Bios through there. For example:

Jemma Simmons (Framework) was a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent who was killed by HYDRA (Framework) and the consciousness of the real world Jemma was uploaded into her body...

Skye (Framework) was a HYDRA (Framework) agent who was in a relationship with Ward (Framework) until the consciousness of the real world Skye was uploaded into her body...

Vijay Nadeer (Framework) was an Inhuman who was captured by HYDRA (Framework)...

Phil Coulson (Framework) was a school teacher...

Melinda May (Framework) was a S.H.I.E.L.D. (Framework) agent who became a HYDRA (Framework) agent after the Cambridge accident...

Holden Radcliffe (Framework) was a scientist who worked on a cure for Inhumanity....

And so on...

And as I said continue the Bio through there. I think this clears up the confusion about Framework and not Framework Characters. From now on until the end of Agents of HYDRA we should only edit and create Framework pages and adit there. So, what do you think?--Blaublau94 (talk) 12:39, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

I agree about about Vijai Nadeer. However, May and Coulson are different cases. They are real people who are connected to the Framework. Before they were captured there was no need for a virtual Coulson and virtual May to exist in the Framework. May was Aida's first "lab rat" in the Framework so Aida shaped the Framework to be May's personal paradise, sort of, thus creating the world where May saved Katya Belyakov. But there is no trace of Coulson ever being a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent in that world. In May's rewritten life she never met him. Later she joined HYDRA and became Number 3 in the Triskelion. When Coulson was captured his memories were rewritten and he became a teacher. As far as we know there never was a Coulson in the Framework before that moment because there was no need for him. Don't forget that this is still a virtual world. Aida can give it any form she wants. She makes peoples' lives in the Framework, she writes their memories. As for Jemma and Daisy, they are even more different. They took the places of their Framework counterparts, so we know those counterparts existed, not to mention that Frame-Ward and May remember Skye and that there is a file about Frame-Jemma, but those two ceased to exist when the real Jemma and Daisy logged into the Framework. So I agree with creating articles for Jemma Simmons (Framework) and Skye (Framework).--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 18:10, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

I agree to create articles for Skye (framework) and Jemma Simmons (framework), but they should include information only until the two enter the framework, because once they got in, Skye (framework) kind of became inactive, and Jemma (framework) was already dead. Vijay definitely needs a framework page, as decided before (since he wasn't uploaded to the framework). As for May, we know that everything she did was the real May's actions, so Melinda May (framework) never existed. Not sure about Coulson and others, though; until some point, their A.I. counterparts must have existed, but we can't know when. Silacko (talk) 18:58, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

Even the characters that had been uploaded Like Coulson, Mack, Mace, May, Daisy and Simmons have a Framework backstory, that's why they need the pages. Saying that real life Melinda May is a HYDRA agent and the real life Coulson is a teacher or that Skye is an Inactive Inhuman is incorrect, they are totally different characters. Even Radcliff (who seems to know the is inside a simulation) has a different backstory than the real one. Since this is a different reality with defferent characters, there should be different pages for the charactersfor all of them. To have just some of them with different pages and some of them with the same page is really confusing from my point of view.--Blaublau94 (talk) 19:18, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a bit about which perspective we choose. From real-world point of view, for instance "Grant Ward (Framework) is a computer-programmed character...", whose Status is Active. He doesn't necessarily have a background story; he is just a piece of code that began to exist at some point in the timeline of the Framework. From the Framework point of view, "Grant Ward was a Hydra infiltrator secretly working with the Resistance...", whose status is Alive. He was born on the same date with the real Ward, and lived a life (just in another reality). Both approaches make sense, at least to me, but we need to choose either. If we're going to use the real-world perspective (which is currently being used, I think), then May (Framework) never existed, and Skye (Framework) ceased to exist once Daisy got into the Framework. What do you guys think? Silacko (talk) 19:36, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

From my point of view we should create Framework pages for every character who have appeared in the Framework. In the Jemma/Daisy/Radcliffe situation (characters who have been uploaded and know they are in a simulation) it's the same thing, but we write that the real life counterpart was upload on the avatar and continue through there. That's the best scenario, no more need to divide information on Framework and Not Framework pages like we are doing know... Every Framework character is listed as an Artificial Inteligence insted of a Human and the affiliations, biographies, relationships and overall info stay correct.--Blaublau94 (talk) 19:51, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

They have the backstories because those backstories were written by Aida. But those backstories were written when Aida captured those people, not before. There was no need for those people to exist in the Framework before she captured the real ones. Aida was changing the Framework case by case. She captures May and puts her mind in. In the next moment May saves Katya and everyone's happy. Aida captures Coulson, Mack, Fitz, and Mace and puts their minds in. In the next moment suddenly there's a teacher Coulson at Alexander Pierce High School, HYDRA has taken over the world, there's an ordinary man Mack who lives with his daughter, and there's Jeffrey Mace, the hero of the Resistance. And for everyone that's perfectly normal. We know there were Frame-Jemma and Frame-Skye because we've seen proofs of their existence (the photo of Skye with Ward and the file about Jemma) but there is no proof that Frame-Mack, Frame-Fitz, Frame-Coulson, and Frame-Mace ever existed in the Framework before Aida wrote the HYDRA-rules-the-world program.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 19:53, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that these "proofs" are also written by Aida. Everything is written by Aida, that's the point. None of it is real according to the Earth-199999 but the Framework is a new reality on itself... it's all a simulation. When you say that the Framework Coulson only started existing after the real one was uploaded, it makes no sense to say that already existed a Framework Skye and a Framework Simmons before they were uploaded. Acording to the show all of them have backstories, the uploaded ones and the AI ones, you have no proof to say that they didn't existed before. They have computer/magic generated backstories? Yes. But so every other Framework character like Ward, Madame Hydra and even Pinsky... I still stand with my solution, i makes no sense to divide the characters like this since they are all different versions of the Earth-199999 ones.--Blaublau94 (talk) 20:08, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

"There was no need for those people to exist in the Framework before she captured the real ones.".

I dont agree with this sentence. By the looks of it Framework-earth is a normaly populated one. There was no need for the women that helped Jemma to exist, yet they did. There was no need for any of the people whose cars got checked to exist, or those in the coffee shop. Or any of the students. So why would they exist, but not Framework versions of Coulson and crew. Framework Earth is in most sence a normal earth, except for the fact that it is a computer program. SoTomasDerksen (talk) 20:56, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! That's my point. Aida created the Framework using also magic, let not forget that. Everyone inside it is a copy of someone outside it, but with a different life. Before the upload there were already versions of them living inside the Framework, their consciousness was uploaded in an avatar, but the avatar was already there.--Blaublau94 (talk) 22:10, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to create separate pages for the counterparts of the agents that were hooked up to the Framework. The LMDs are separate entities, while these are basically brainwashed versions of our characters.Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 04:02, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

i think we need to make them. We cant write the things that happened to the framework versions into the bio of the normal once, because they dont happen to the normal once. While framework coulson is teaching his class, real coulson is stuck in a machine at aidas base. They are 2 different characters. And therefor should haven 2 different pages.TomasDerksen (talk) 10:32, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ. They aren't two different characters, but the same ones with false memories. The fact that Framework Coulson remembers shreds of his real life proves that. And what would be wrong about their pages having a "Life in the Framework" section? Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 10:38, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are... as I said, this is a new different reality. The Earth-199999 Melinda May did not save the girl in Bahrain, but the Framework one did. It doesn't make sense to list the Earth-199999 Phil Coulson as a school teacher since one is a SHIELD agent and the other is the theacher. By your definition none of these pages should exist, yet they are all different versions of the Earth-199999 ones inside the Earth-199999 reality, exactly like the Framework ones. I stant with TomasDerksen, "We cant write the things that happened to the framework versions into the bio of the normal ones". Different characters, should have different pages.--Blaublau94 (talk) 13:12, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

It's not exactly like that: the Melinda May in the Framework is Melinda May from Earth-199999. She is only brainwashed because she is relieving a totally different reality. The same can be said for Fitz and Coulson. Grant Ward from the Framework it is not the real Grant Ward, however, but only a digital structure that resemble the original. --Elledy92 (talk) 15:32, April 6, 2017 (UTC+1)

Elledy got exactly my point. By your logic, Blaublau, the May that fought Aida in the Framework isn't the real May either. But she was. Everyone who was uploaded into their "avatars" is still themselves, but with altered memories. Hence why it's possible to recall details of their real lives. Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 13:36, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

The Framework is not a new reality, it's just a virtual simulation, like a 3D video game. The real May was the one who saved the virtual Katya. Katya's death was May's biggest mistake and Aida changed that, giving May the happy ending that she always wanted. It makes no sense for Aida to connect the real people to the Framework and then create their virtual duplicates to live the lives that real people wanted to live. If Aida planned the virtual duplicates to live the fantasies that real people wanted to live, why would she connect the real people to the Framework in the first place? Just kill them and be done with them. Also, it was made clear that if a real person dies in the Framework, that person would also die in the real world, which makes them the same character.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 13:43, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

It is not the real May though. The real may is the one in Aida's base, the one standing in a machine connected to the framework. Since it is not a real world, but a virtial world, all the people in it are virtual duplicates. Just because they are connected, does not mean they are the same person. One is a real human being, the other one is a program. The real Coulson is stuck in a machine, the virtual version of Coulson is a teacher on a high school. If Coulson were to be placed in the Framework for a full year, then in the biography of Coulson it should be placed that way, that for a year Coulson has been connected to the framework and stuck in a machine. That the one in the framework is a teacher has nothing to do with the real coulson, since he is not a teacher, and he will never be a teacher.

The best way in my eyes, is the way it is now done in the Ward article. A small alinea, but the majority of the information should be placed on a seperate page for the character from the framwork reality.TomasDerksen (talk) 21:45, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Coulson's life inside the Framework is still part of his biography, since it is the real Phil Coulson who was put in the Framework, and it is his real consciousness to be affected by the fictional reality, not a copy. --(Elledy92)Elledy 22:21, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

it might be the real coulson who is conmected to the framework, but the things that are happening to the framework coulson are not happening to the real coulson, the real coulson is not doing anything, besides being connected to the framework.TomasDerksen (talk) 23:41, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is getting us anywhere, should we just vote? Dr.Who1997^{To The Playground} 03:09, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

"By your logic, Blaublau, the May that fought Aida in the Framework isn't the real May either". That is an entire different case. The May fought Aida in the Framework is the SHIELD agent May, and she eventually realized she was in a simulation. The May that saved the girl in Bahrain and now is a HYDRA agent is a totally different character, don't you see? That is so simple.

Who is Hope Mackenzie's father in this video? Well, it's not the real Mack. The real Mack lost his daughter and now his body is trapped by Aida. Hope Mackenzie's father here is another version of the character, a version that is not a SHIELD agent.

"Who is Hope Mackenzie's father in this video?" That's the real Mack, his consciousness, with a virtual character that supposed to be his daughter. That's just like in the final season of "Lost", where in the "other life" Jack Shepard is real Jack, while his son is just a fictional character made in that world. --Elledy 11:41, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree on creating Framework pages of the characters because it doesn't make sense to create pages for some of them and not for other ones since all of them a different versions of the Earth-199999 ones. Why Madame HYDRA who is the leader of HYDRA in this reality deserve a page and Jemma Simmons who was killed in the academy don't? Why the Grant Ward who is an infiltrate in HYDRA deserve a page but the Coulson who is a school teacher don't? This just create confusion, misunderstanding and lack of overall cohesionfor the wiki.

If it helps, you could take a look at this. Marvel (who is the creator of the comics who the episode title, "What If...", takes its inspiration from) organize this What If scenarios by taking each of these new realities, with other versions of the same characters with different backgrounds and putting them in seperate realities.--Blaublau94 (talk) 19:31, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

But when you think about it, there's a huge difference between Grant Ward and Phil Coulson in the Framework. Ward was never captured by Aida and his consciousness was never uploaded to the Framework. Coulson and others, on the other hand, were intentionally captured alive so that they could be uploaded and live in the Framework. Even if Coulson's physical body is killed right now, it'll still be the real Coulson that lives in the virtual reality (just like Arnim Zola). There has to be a difference between those who were uploaded and those who were programmed; otherwise, why would Aida need to catch the agents alive?

By the way, I still strongly insist on creating pages for Jemma Simmons (Framework) and Skye (Framework) that contain information about their AI counterparts prior to Simmons' death and Daisy's entering the Framework. Silacko (talk) 20:24, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Let's examine the evidences again, shall we? First, Aida's goal is to make people's greatest regrets be wiped away, so they could live the lives they always wanted. To accomplish that, she connected them to the Framework, a virtual world which she controls. That's pretty clear and I think we all agree on that.

Second, remember what Jemma said at the end of Self Control. "We've managed to identify the duplicate avatars of myself and Daisy that are running around in there." Now, were those avatars living the lives in which Jemma and Daisy's greatest regret was erased? No, they weren't. And why is that? Because Aida didn't even know what their greatest regret was. She never had a chance to scan their brains and find out all their secrets. She could only create their avatars to serve as inhabitants of that virtual world like the rest of the 7,4 billion avatars.

Third, the avatars are not self-aware beings, they're all just a giant piece of code in a computer, a bunch of puppets on Aida's strings. Aida was the one who wrote their lives. The Framework is a video game with Aida's rules. They may think of themselves as real beings but they're not.

Fourth, the avatars are in the Framework to live there instead of real people. When real people log into the Framework, the avatars wanish. When Jemma and Daisy logged into the Framework, they took the places of their avatars. Since Daisy's avatar was programmed to be a HYDRA agent who is still called Skye, Daisy woke up in a bath tub because just a moment earlier her avatar, the HYDRA agent Skye, was taking a bath. Since Jemma's avatar was programmed to be a slaughtered S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, Jemma woke up in a mass grave with her clothes full of bullet holes.

Fifth, Aida didn't know what Mack's, Coulson's, Mace's, and Fitz's biggest regrets were before she captured them. Therefore, she couldn't create alternate lives in the Framework for them while they were free. When she connected them to the Framework, that's when teacher Coulson, ordinary guy Mack, the Ressistance hero Mace and HYDRA Doctor Fitz appeared. They didn't exist before that.

Sixth, if the real person is supposed to live the alternate life in the Framework, why would Aida create an avatar to live that alternate life? Holden Radcliffe has shown that the real person is connected to the Framework. Whatever the connected person experiences in the Framework, that person will also experience that in the real world. It was made clear at the end of Self Control that if the connected person dies in the Framework, that person will also die in the real world.

Seventh, if Mack, Coulson, Mace, and Fitz in the Framework are not the real ones but their avatars, why does Coulson still remember some bits of his old life? If that Coulson in the Framework is just an avatar, he's not supposed to remember anything from the real Coulson's life, because the avatar's whole life as a school teacher would be entirely made up by Aida. And yet, Coulson is collecting newspapers articles like a detective (or a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent), he's repeating the "It's a magical place" mantra, and the crucial evidence - he remembers Daisy at the end of What If.... An avatar would be unable to do that because the avatar would never have met anyone named Daisy.

Eight, the bodies of our heroes are in the real world, true, but their minds are trapped in the Framework, and that's what counts. Aida wants the real people's minds to experience the lives they wanted, not their avatars. If she wanted the avatars to experience that, she wouldn't need to capture the real people at all. She would have just made the avatars that look like Mack, Coulson, Mace, and Fitz, like she did with Grant Ward, and give them some lives that had no relation to the real people's wishes. That's why Mack, Coulson, Mace, and Fitz in the Framework are the real ones. Jemma says to Coulson, "I know I sound like a lunatic, but you have had your mind wiped and implanted with false memories." Coulson is a teacher because he never joined S.H.I.E.L.D., Mace is ressistance leader because he always wanted to be a hero, Mack's daughter never died and she lives with him, May is a HYDRA agent becuase she saved Katya, and Fitz is a HYDRA doctor (but also a special case, which I'll explain later). But those are still real people's minds who are living false lives.

Ninth, Blaublau is right about Madame Hydra. She doesn't deserve a page. At least not a AoS page. It needs to be reverted back to its CA:SS version. Why? Because, as Rythian2277 has noticed here, at the end of What If..., Madame Hydra says to Fitz that she has "Eliminated a loophole for their (Daisy and Jemma's) escape." That "loophole" was the extraction device which Jemma programmed for them to log out of the Framework, but which wasn't working when they tried to return to the real world. That means that Madame Hydra is perfectly aware that she's in a virtual world, which means she's actually Aida with a new hairstyle. She wants to keep everything under control, just like she did earlier when she fought with May in the Framework when May tried to escape. That also explains why is Aida/Madame Hydra keeping Fitz with her most of the time. As we learned at the end of Self Control, she wants to experience the real human emotions, and what better way to accomplish that than by having a human lover?

To conclude, this is the course of action we should take: the Madame Hydra page needs to be reverted to its CA:SS version and all AoS info needs to be moved to Aida's page. That includes the HYDRA (Framework) Leaders category. The pages for Daisy's and Jemma's avatars should be made. The girls found them in the Framework so we know those avatars had some histories and interacted with other avatars and real people's minds. We should make avatar pages for real people who are not connected to the Framework but have their Framework avatars. But the actions of Mack, Fitz, Coulson, May, and Mace should go to their pages. We shouldn't make avatar pages for them because there is no proof that those avatars ever existed before Aida captured the real people. We have proofs of Daisy's and Jemma's avatars' existence, but we have no proofs for the four guys' avatars' existence.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 21:21, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with creating a page for Daisy Johnson (Framework) (or in this case "Skye (Framework)) and Jemma Simmons (Framework), but i don't agree on moving back the Madame Hydra page. In fact, it should be opposite: we should merge the "Aida" and "Madame Hydra" but keeping "Madame Hydra" as the main page, according to the wiki policies. --Elledy 11:45, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Aida is a case like John Garrett. She created an alternate identity to play the role in the Framework, but she is first and foremost Aida. The role of Madame Hydra is just a tool which she's using to accomplish her goals, just like Garrett created the Clairvoyant to accomplish his own goals, but Madame Hydra is not Aida's primary identity, just as the Clairvoyant wasn't Garrett's primary identity.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 12:07, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

No, I dont agree at all. Madama Hydra should stay, but not me merged like Elledy says, because the AIDA in the realworld is not Madame Hydra. If we make pages for Daisy and Jemma, we should also make pages for the others (Coulson, Fitz, Mack, Mace and May). These 2 groups are in the exact same situation, except for the fact that Daisy and Jemma know they are in the framework, and the other 5 dont. The argument that there is no proof of them ever having existed makes no sense. Yes, there is no proof, and there would not be a reason for them to have existed before. But there was also no reason for Daisy and Jemma's avatar to exist before, yet they did. Why would 2 of them be made without a reason, but the others not. It makes 0.0 sense. Making pages for some, and no pages for some of the other lacks logic. If it was up to me we make it for everone. The peope in the framework will never be the real version. They will always be a virtual avatar, because it is a virtual world. The real person is just connected to the avatar, that does not mean it is immediatly a real person, it is still an avatar. Still a bunch of code, but this time filled by what Aida can scan from their heads.TomasDerksen (talk) 12:10, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

Aida can be present in both the real world and the Framework at the same time. She showed that when she fought May. She's not Madame Hydra in the real world but she is in the Framework. Sorry, Tomas, but your logic doesn't make sense. What you're saying is that Jemma and Daisy we saw in the latest episode were not the real ones but Aida's creations, and we both know that's not true.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 12:29, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

My makes a lot of sense, while yours, imo, does not. The Jemma and the Daisy we saw last episode are indeed not the real once. The real once are the 2 bodies that are stuck in a machine at the shield base. These 2 are both avatars, connected with the real once, and fully aware they are in a fake world. They aren't phisycal bodies, at all, they are avatars made from a code, but both connected to the real once, and therefor aware they are their. In my opinion, something that is not a real physical human body, but a code-created avatar, connected or not, will never be the real person.

What is happening in AoS is a lot like Virtual Reality gaming. The real person is standing in his living room, while through Virtual Reality he is walking around through the jungle and shooting others with a Call of Duty avatar. The real person is not walking through the jungle, but through his living room while seeing a different world. In AoS the scale of this Virtual Reality world is just 10000x as big.TomasDerksen (talk) 20:34, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

You're right in that the Jemma and Skye we saw in the Framework were virtual bodies, but they are controlled by the real Jemma and Daisy, which makes them both real-world characters. Think of it like Hive entered Grant Ward's body. We didn't include Hive's actions in Ward's biography then; similarly, we shouldn't include the actions of real-world characters in the Framework characters' biographies. -Silacko (talk) 21:07, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

In my situation we are not adding the actions of the real-world characters in the framework character biography. Because the only action the real world characters are currently doing is being connected to a machine (Framework). We are adding the actions of the avatar to the avatar's page. The avatar is just being controlled via the connection the realworld character has with the framework avatar. Avatar =/= Real Person, and it will never be the real person.

There is btw no reason to do a vote, because everyone can see that the majority says that the avatar is a real person.TomasDerksen (talk) 21:15, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, the Jemma and Daisy in the Framework are the real ones. If they were the avatars, the avatar Jemma would look like a zombie, because the avatar Jemma was programmed to be dead for years. The avatar Jemma would look just like that corpse beneath the real Jemma when she woke up in the Framework, don't you think? But she didn't look like a corpse. She looked like a real person, with dirty clothes.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 21:58, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

they arent the real once, the real once are still in the real world, connected with the framework. Since the framework is a virtual world, made by code, nothing in there is real, it is all.virtual and all avatars. Jemma does not look like a zombie because off the way they went in, she is a new version of the same avatar, just like skye is a new version of the same avatar. And an avatar can never be a real person. Something made by code will never be a real thing.TomasDerksen (talk) 22:31, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

They are the real ones, the body are in the real world but their consciousness are uploaded in the Framework. If they died in the Framework, they are gone forever.

I still think that the "AIDA" page should be renamed "Madame Hydra": that's her codename now, after all.--Elledy92 (talk) 16:04, April 12, 2017 (UTC+1)

You guys deleted madame Hydra's page? Really? .-. OMG--Blaublau94 (talk) 14:24, April 12, 2017 (UTC)

No one deleted anything. The Madame Hydra page was reverted to its CA:SS version and the AoS MH info was moved to the Aida page. Nothing was lost.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 14:33, April 12, 2017 (UTC)

I know we're not done discussing whether or not Framework visitors should deserve Framework pages, but could we also consider adding information about the species for Framework characters? Currently, the species of Grant Ward (Framework) is "Artificial Intelligence"; I suggest changing it to something like "Human (A.I.)". I know they're not real humans, but this way we can distinguish human A.I.s and Inhuman A.I.s. Is that possible? -Silacko (talk) 22:12, April 12, 2017 (UTC)

Does the silence imply nobody agrees or nobody cares? Silacko (talk) 08:00, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

I think this discussion can be closed, can a short conclusion be written down?TomasDerksen (talk) 12:58, May 29, 2017 (UTC)

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

New category[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Not implemented

There's not really anywhere to go on this Wiki to find only characters that originated in (or are exclusive to) the MCU. The closest is the List of Marvel Comics Features and its section on MCU characters that made the jump to the comics.

I suggest making a category for the MCU original/exclusive characters, that way people who are interested in such things can find them. Maybe call it "Category:Original Characters"? Edward Zachary Sunrose (talk) 04:20, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

That's because, with the exception of the few articles that appear in that list, everyone else is an "original MCU character"... If any, it would make more sense to make a category for the characters that originated from the comics, but not this.--Shabook (talk) 10:06, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, 90+% of the characters are original, all minor tv-series characters by example, but also some of the major once. Same for minor tv-characters. The other way around would indeed be better, then you can find original characters by seeing if they are not in that category.
I do like the idea, but it would only work with a lower % of "orignal" characters TomasDerksen (talk) 12:29, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

Well, we could always just do it for prominently featured characters, like Hope Shlottman or Darcy Lewis, or Jiaying. Characters like that. Edward Zachary Sunrose (talk) 02:19, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

That is something I would agree with, but then limits have to be set first, before people just give the category to every article they seem fit.TomasDerksen (talk) 02:45, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

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

Category for Magic Users[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

No response in a year

I would like to propose a major category for every characters in the MCU who uses Magic. This would include Loki, Frigga and Krugarr. This is because not every magic user is part of a group, and so it doesn't posses a category who represents it.--Elledy92 (Elledy92) 13:34 (UCT + 1)

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

Removing Reviews Pages[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted

Well, I've been wondering for a while why are we keeping Reviews pages, that are simply a copy-paste of what other people think and write in many websites available. These pages are rarely edited, and never updated (the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. one is based on the Pilot episode four years ago...) So, I'd like to hear a good reason on what do they benefit to the wiki, or else I think we should delete them.--Shabook (talk) 22:42, August 23, 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. They don't seem to be pretty useful. I wouldn't mind if they are deleted. --Elledy92 (talk) 02:08, August 24, 2017 (UTC+1)

If they aren't used anymore they should be deleted. The Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. (talk) 00:44, August 24, 2017 (UTC)

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

Timeline Upkeep[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Not a proposal

I've been a regular lurker for some time, and have been using the timeline for a personal fan project, and just noticed it hasn't been updated at all for Defenders, which has been out for awhile. Id be happy to work on that, but I wanted to connect with the other people who regularly work on the timeline first, especially because they have put such amazingly meticulous work into figuring it out and I don't wanna muck that up. if anyone can please let me know whats happening with timeline work and how I can help

BardicFire (talk) 23:12, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

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

"Appearances"[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Not removed, as mentions often include important information about the character

In all the character pages, in the "appearences" section of the infoboxes, a list of movies is listed. However, a lot of the characters infoboxes have movies listed in which they were just mentioned. This directly contradicts what an "appearence" is and the sections could be much more tidier if these were cut out and only the movies in which that character actually appeared are listed in the "appearences" section. Hopefully people can understand where I'm coming from and start clearing this issue up. Thanks. Mysterious Editor (talk) 13:27, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

It's coincidental that this is brought up now because I've been thinking about that a bit lately. I think that the wiki would be a bit tidier if the mentions are only listed in the "Appearances" part of a character bio, not the infobox. SwagMasterDbl (talk) 13:34, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

Not every character has or deserves an Appearances section. Infoboxes are exactly as they are meant to be, inclusive and informative, not just "tidy". Sorry, but not gonna happem.--Shabook (talk) 13:41, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

You have clearly misunderstood the point of this. Please read my original comment. The Appearances section would be fine if you remove movies where the said character is only "mentioned". Since being mentioned is not an appearance, by definition. Mysterious Editor (talk) 18:24, November 13, 2017 (UTC)

I've clearly read everything. It's exactly as it is meant to be.--Shabook (talk) 19:08, November 13, 2017 (UTC)

A mention is not an appearance though is it? Mysterious Editor (talk) 19:29, November 13, 2017 (UTC)

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

Sorcerers Category[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Already proposed above

Hi, May I create the Sorcerers category? I believe that this deserves its own category. Riverdale Chauffeur (talk) 20:18, November 28, 2017 (UTC)

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

MCU Film Descriptions[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Guideline already exists

I was looking through the articles of each of the film pages on the wiki when I noticed a lot of inconsitencies in the articles opening paragraph descriptions. Most of them opened somewhat like this:

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is a 2017 superhero fantasy adventure film, based on the Marvel Comics superhero team of the same name. It is the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy and the fifteenth installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as well as the third installment of Phase Three. The film was released on April 25, 2017 internationally and on May 5, 2017 in the United States.

The film is directed by James Gunn and stars Chris Pratt as Peter Quill/Star-Lord, Zoe Saldana as Gamora, Dave Bautista as Drax the Destroyer, Vin Diesel as the voice of Groot, Bradley Cooper as the voice of Rocket Raccoon, Pom Klementieff as Mantis, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Michael Rooker as Yondu Udonta, Elizabeth Debicki as Ayesha, Sylvester Stallone as Stakar Ogord and Kurt Russell as Ego.

In the weeks leading up to the film's release, Gunn announced a sequel, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, slated to be released in 2020.

That's the best example I could find, because almost all of the descriptions had some unusual inconsitencies. Some of them listed the release dates in the same paragraph as the "directed by and staring", some of them said simply "Directed by" instead of "The film is directed by", and a lot of other minor things like that.

Normally I would just go and make the minor edits myself to create some consitency, however, whenever I did so, someone would always undo my edits to leave them all inconsitent.

I was thinking of formating each one like this:

[Film title] is a [year] superhero film, based on the Marvel Comics superhero (team) of the same name. It is the sequel to [any previous films that it is a sequel to] and the [placement] installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as well as the [placement] installment of Phase [number]. The film was released on [International release date] internationally and on [American release date] in the United States.

The film is directed by [Director] and stars [cast member] as [character], [cast member] as [character], [cast member] as [character] and [cast member] as [character].

[Paragraph on any information regarding the film's sequel(s) (if requiered)]

If any of you disagree, that's fine. I just thought I'd bring it up.

Thank you!

WinterWolverine (talk) 22:23, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

There is actually a guideline to explain how those paragraphs should be written here. Unfortunately, it is ignored by most people...--Shabook (talk) 22:37, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

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

Template for attacks, kidnappings and assassinations attempts[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Template already existed

My proposal is to created a template similar to our already exisiting "Event" and "Conflict" templates but meant for situations were the target is a civilian or a single individual and there are no "commanders" so to speak. Similar templates are used in Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, Game of Thrones Wiki, Wiki of Ice and Fire

For example, during the kidnapping of Peter Quill, he's not actually a combatant, he's the target, a victim. Similarly, the Rand plane crash on the Himalayas is an assassination attempt that has a planner and target. During the murder of Jack Murdock, he's not issuing orders or guiding anyone, thus he shouldn't be tagged as a "commander".

Instead of altering our already existing "Conflict" template, I propose a template with the following new information:

- Planned by: Who plans the attack or orders it? - Executed by: Who carries it out? - Target: Who is meant to be killetd/kidnapped/harassed - Casualties: Whoever is killed or injured in the process, either the attacker, the target or

Tags like Location, Date, Outcome, Overall conflict, Previous and Next event, Movie/Show/Comic appearance would be kept.

--RenR25 (talk) 17:46, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, we're in dire need of such a template. Dr.Who1997^{Wakanda Forever} 19:44, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

Would it keep different sides or will it be more straightforward like the Event template?--Shabook (talk) 00:25, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

I'd go with the more straightforward style so as to avoid having empty boxes as the target's "side" wouldn't normally have an equivalent to the Plotter or Planner tag.--RenR25 (talk) 20:07, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Then why not just add a few fields to the Event template? They would not appear if left empty for other events...--Shabook (talk) 20:30, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I didn't do it to avoid disrupting the template much.--RenR25 (talk) 21:12, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea. AKA S.I.H (talk) 16:46, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

I have a question. It has now been added to the assasination pages and some of the attack pages. It that the only category you wanted it added in? Because by example Attack on the Playground is also an attack, which was planned by one side, executed by one side, targeted the other side. Should it be added there as well? It is best when added to every page of a ceratin event category, atleast in my opinion.TomasDerksen (talk) 14:58, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

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

Two proposed renames[]

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Rename proposals belong to specific talk pages, not the general wiki discussion

I have re-posted the first proposal from the corresponding article's talk page following a lack of responses, and have also added the second proposal:

1. Transporter → Lifeboats

In Age of Ultron these vehicles are only referred to as "lifeboats", or "boats" for short:

Cameron Klein: Lifeboats secure to deploy. Disengage in three, two... take them out.
Klein: Number six boat is topped and locked... or stocked... topped... It's full of people.
Captain America: Even I can tell the air is getting thin. You guys get to the boats. I'll sweep for stragglers.
Scarlet Witch: Get the people on the boats. Quicksilver: I'm not going to leave you here.
Hawkeye: We don't have a lot of time. Black Widow: So get your ass on a boat.

I have been unable to find any references to the name "transporter" in any other media.

2. Aldrich Killian's War → Aldrich Killian's Campaign

In Iron Man 3, the conflict is referred to on-screen by Tony as a "campaign" (specifically the "Mandarin Campaign") when calling the Vice President. Also, this was arguably not a war itself, but rather an campaign by Killian, as stated in his words, to hijack the War on Terror by usurping the presidency to control both sides of the war.

As Aldrich Killian was not the person publicly identified as the "Mandarin" (Trevor Slattery), and by following the current naming of similar non-war conflicts after their orchestrator (Johann Fennhoff's Campaign; Grant Ward's Campaign; Adrian Toome's Campaign), I propose that this article be renamed accordingly.

NickM98 (talk) 11:57, May 2, 2018 (UTC)

Both make sense to me. Especially Lifeboats as Wiki pages should strive to name themselves after their most commonly used official title. Blizzard1289 (talk) 07:45, May 6, 2018 (UTC)

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