Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki:Community Portal/Archive VI

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.

Promotional Images[]

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

Abandoned

By this conversation between me and Nerdtastic1221 we've came up with different views for the same problem. As noted by him most of the galleries here on the wiki have Promotional Still Images listed under Screenshots sections. Since I was the one of the main editors for the Spider-Man/Gallery page, I could shape it the wright way: by adding Still images under the proper Promotional section as they should be. By reading our conversation (and the links I showed him ) you can see that by definition Screenshots and Stills are different things. Nerdtastic1221 justified keeping things the way they are because that's the way we always did and that's why we shouldn't change. Several times we did structural changes here (for the best) and we also did changes that included editing lots and lots of articles (like the addition of the Citizenship and Affiliation categories). That's why I propose to proper rearrange the Gallery pages and rightfully ajust this little mistake we have on our wiki. I would be glad if I could count on your help like I did with the Citizenship and Affiliation categories since I'll need all of it.--Blaublau94 (talk) 17:04, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

My argument is that this is a still image from a movie scene, it is a taken from a scene being filmed with the actors. In my mind this allows it to be included in the screenshots section. The screenshots section is for images from the movie/tv show scenes themselves, regardless if they were literally taken from the completed shot or not.

I believe the promotional section of the gallery should be reserved for posters or posed images of the cast.

Backing me up is the fact that in the wiki's entire history, these sorts or images have always been included in the screenshots section of the galleries.Nerdtastic1221 (talk) 17:28, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

There are things that don't have to be discussed. Definitions are what they are. And any image that appears in a movie or TV episode is an screenshot, no matter if it was taken from the released media, or by Marvel prior to the release...--Shabook (talk) 17:43, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

Except this image does not appear in a TV episode or a movie. They are set photo, they have different angles and cuts and light and are not representative of the final product.--Elledy92 (talk) 10:49, August 8, 2017 (UTC+1)

Agreed. Set photos such as the one shown above with Ned Leeds and Peter Parker should be categorized under "stills"; if anything, however, it would still fall under "Promotional" rather than "Screenshots". MJLogan95 (talk) 14:37, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

I would say there's a difference between a set picture and a still, and a still has more relevance in the screenshots section. I honestly believe that the promotional section should be reserved for posters, and cast photoshoots like the recent ones from the Inhumans. On another point, for ease of use on this wiki, it is vastly easier to find a still image from a movie/tv scene when it's in the screenshots section in the correct order. And as Shabook says, why does anyone want to try and redefine this? If anything should be changed (which it doesn't need to), then perhaps consider changing the word screenshots to stills, but that is still basically pointless.Nerdtastic1221 (talk) 15:36, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe there should be a section for "stills" as well as a section for "screenshots", with the latter being classified for actual screenshots taken from the film. And this way, the "promotional" section is reserved for posters, magazine artwork, etc. Adding another header isn't going to be too difficult or a waste of time, even. And it does smooth this issue out, does it not? MJLogan95 (talk) 15:40, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

There isn't much of a difference between a still and a set photo. They are the same thing. The difference between a screenshot and a still is the first one is a frame taken from a video, the latter is a photo taken from video. There is no need to create a "stills" paragraph, but they certanly fall more under the category of promotional material. Elledy92 (talk) 19:23, August 8, 2017 (UTC+1)

I agree with Blaublau94. Just because the wiki has always done something doesn't mean it needs to stay that way. Stills released by Marvel are mostly set photos (the ones that aren't are usually the ones that have CGI, in which case they are actually screencaps). By the strictest definitions of canon, which is what we usually abide by, set photos would therefore not be canon and shouldn't appear in screenshots or on in universe pages and should just be in the promotional galleries. Coluanprime (talk) 18:17, August 9, 2017 (UTC)

IF the "still" does not literally appear the same way in the movie/tv-show, it should not be in screenshots, if it does (like a lot of them do) it could fit as a screenshot. But if making this change could lead to "stills" that match "screenshots" could end up not falling under screenshots, even though they technicaly are, I dont agree with the change, because that wont mean fixing a mistake, but just changing a mistake. Atleast they should not end up in the set photos.TomasDerksen (talk) 20:24, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

But still hardly cannot be mistaken for screenshots. Sometimes they appear similar, maybe shots in a similar angle, but lights and cuts are usually different. I think that cannot be mistaken. Elledy92 (talk) 23:51, August 11, 2017 (UTC+1)

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

Mythological Characters Category[]

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

Not applied

I was thinking that, since a lot of characters that are consider mythological exists in the MCU, like Bast and Hanuman, but even "physical" characters like Thor and Loki, the category "Mythological Characters" could be created (since Characters suitable in this case). --Elledy92 (Elledy92) 11:17, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

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

Medicines Category[]

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

Applied

I'd like to suggest the creation of a category for Medicines, as a subcategory of Items. This category could at least include GH.325, Ghost Infection Antidote, Terrigenesis Vaccine, Rapid Bone-Healing Pills, Resurrection Elixir and Sufentanil. I'm not sure whether the Tetrodotoxin B would fall into this.--TraceFinder (talk) 12:45, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a good category / subcategory of items to me. There appears to be enough articles based of what you mentioned and I’m sure there will be more in the future. It’s also a distinct and easily understandable category. Lol pie (talk) 15:49, May 20, 2018 (UTC)

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

Category for Actors with Upcoming Roles[]

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

Not applied

Could we have a category for actors whose characters have not yet appeared? Examples being Walton Goggins and Laurence Fishburne. At the very least, these actors should be in the Upcoming Content category. TheRadion (talk) 00:55, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

Clear example of overcategorization, so not needed.--Shabook (talk) 20:05, October 3, 2018 (UTC)

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

Category for Cloak and Dagger's visions[]

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

Not applied

I think "Probed" fits the description of what Cloak and Dagger do to their targets when they use their perception powers. I would like to propose two new categories:

Characters Probed by Cloak
Characters Probed by Dagger

Thoughts? Sirenhound (talk) 11:34, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

Clear example of overcategorization, so not needed.--Shabook (talk) 20:05, October 3, 2018 (UTC)

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

Gifs[]

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

Not applied

Is there a specific reason the wiki doesn't seem to use gifs outside of the spoiler tag? (moving images if there's anyone who doesn't know) If there isn't I feel it'd be a good way to show powers in action among other things in comparison to still images. SwagMasterDbl (talk) 05:11, April 2, 2018 (UTC)

Hard to come by, hard to develop, hard to apply and remove the seriousness this wiki's articles aim to have. Please don't add them.--Shabook (talk) 20:05, October 3, 2018 (UTC)

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

Actors with Roles in Comic Book Adaptations outside the Marvel Cinematic Universe[]

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

Limited to the proposed trivia-worthy category

In the past few weeks, I've been doing a thorough review of the more than 5000 articles in the Actors category, and while doing so, I realized something a bit troublesome. So far, actors and stunt performers have Trivia points detailing their roles in each and every movie labelled as "comic book adaptations". Does this mean that, in order for article to be complete and consistent with each other, do we have to keep an eye on EVERY movie remotely based in anything written inside a strip searching for actors and stunt performers that may have appeared in one the many MCU products?

I can understand the Trivia value of the appearances of an actor in other films based on Marvel characters, and even in DC as Marvel's main competitor. In some cases, these roles have been documented to in casting a particular actor in a role, or their willingness/reluctance to accept their role in the MCU. And that is why they are "Trivia-worthy".

However, how does it affect an appearance in, let's say, Fear the Walking Dead, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Atomic Blonde, Happy! and many others, to the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

So, unless there is a very good reason on why to keep these and waste time and effort instead of focusing on the actual purpose of this wiki, most of this Trivia points are going to disappear. Anyone?--Shabook (talk) 15:21, September 20, 2018 (UTC)

I would say leave the trivia about connections to other Marvel projects and DC works then just have a general statement that the actor/actress having appeared in other "comic related" projects but not list specific details.--Professor Ambrius (talk) 18:24, September 20, 2018 (UTC)

But why? Following that reasoning, we should also add sci-fi movies, action/adventure movies or blockbuster movies...--Shabook (talk) 18:39, September 20, 2018 (UTC)

Then go ahead and remove the content. If it's pointless then it pointless. All I meant was that how I would do trivia connected to other projects. Apparently I for got to type "would" when I left my original reply. I wasn't coming out and saying that should be the new policy.--Professor Ambrius (talk) 21:07, September 20, 2018 (UTC)

The point of this subject was me asking for a reason to keep it that, personally, I don't see. If somebody does, please.

I gotta side with Shabook here. It seems like overkill to specifically mention if actors or stunt performers have appeared in other Comic Book related mediums. At the end of the day it just doesn't really have much to do with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which obviously this entire Wiki is based upon. Perhaps listing if actors or stunt performers have appeared in other Marvel productions could be relevant, but as mentioned their involvement in something from DC or another comic book franchise is just not worth the effort to add to what could be literally hundreds of articles. Blizzard1289 (talk) 20:27, September 20, 2018 (UTC)

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

Timer[]

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

Solved

I noticed that the countdown timer for Captain Marvel on the front page is now counting up. Is there a way to stop this?

Skovox (talk) 01:22, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

Changed to Avengers: Endgame.--Uskok^{S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground} 17:22, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

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

Infinity Stones Enhancement[]

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

Abandoned

So in Captain Marvel we find out that she got her powers from the engine powered by the cosmic power of the Tesseract. So just like Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, Carol's power comes from the infinity stones. Although kree blood was given to her, (like an Inhuman) she is seen manifesting her power before the transfer, showing the true origin of it.

So I was thinking that maybe adding an "infinity stone enchancement" chategory and description would serve the wikia while still being canon. What do you think? --Vagon23 (talk) 16:32, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

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

Characters of unknown species[]

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

In consideration for a hidden category

Hi, I was wondering if I would be allowed to create a category for characters whose species are not specified. I've noticed a lot of characters on this wiki whose species are not mentioned and I just wanted to group them together. I also wanted to ask permission just in case. Humanoid21 (talk) 19:19, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this idea! Bpste1 (talk) 07:59, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

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

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3[]

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

Solved

For the film, it is currently protected, limiting creation of the page to admins. Now, i have created the article here. Given that its mostly finished and will be produced after 2021, what can be done to ensure it is published? — MechQueste ^talk 13:17, March 28, 2019 (UTC)

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

Update Template[]

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

That's the purpose of the Expand template, no need for a duplicate

With new seasons for TV series getting closer, I was wondering if we shouldn't implement an "Update" template (like it's done on other Wikias or Wikipedia), which would be put in articles which are not Stubs, but need new information because of newly released episodes/movies. For example, the articles about Cloak and Dagger, or the S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, which will soon need to be updated with the new seasons arriving.

I was thinking we could create a tag similar to the Delete tag, which could be put on top on articles and in which the editor which puts the tag can indicate from which episode/movie the article needs to be updated. As for the quote, we could use what Tony says to Bruce in Avengers: Infinity War ("God, we haven't caught up in a spell, have we?").

That way, an article could follow this kind of process: Redlink (no article) -> Upcoming content (if known before release) -> Stub (after release) -> Update (no longer stub but still needing updating) -> Expand (in necessary sections) -> Complete article--TraceFinder (talk) 14:00, April 1, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you! Great idea! --Vagon23 (talk) 18:45, April 1, 2019 (UTC)

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

New ENDGAME SPOILER Category[]

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

Created, without input

After Endgame, we know that many characters travelled through time for the stones. I suggest creating a new 'Time-Traveler' category. Such characters would include Tony, Cap, Widow, Hawkeye, Nebula, Rhodey, Rocket, Thor, Thanos, Gamora, the Black Order, and Doctor Strange (from his solo film).

Any community/admin thoughts on this? --Bpste1 (talk) 07:58, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

Strange wouldn't be considered a Time Traveler, as he never appeared in a different time period, simply manipulated time around him in the present (during the movie).
Cerbinwydd (talk) 14:12, June 4, 2019 (UTC)

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

Event Naming Policy Addition Suggestion[]

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

~~Not applied~~
Post-Archive Admin Addendum: Verdict overruled. Previous administration shut down the discussion by archiving without giving zero input or seeking consensus. Policy change, independently proposed by new administration, applied as of July 2024.

I've suggested this to admins a while back, but I've been redirected to here since they advised it was here where this topic should be addressed. I've held back on this for a while, but I've now found the time to properly address this.

There have been a lot of "Assassination" pages. The definition of "assassination" (taken from Wikipedia) is "the killing of a prominent person for either political or religious reasons or for payment". Now, while many articles on here do fit that criteria, other articles are labelled with the "assassination" title but as per the actual event, some of the events that occur in said "assassinations" feels so abrupt and unplanned. It makes people like me wonder why it's even classified as such.

For example, let's compare two articles on this wikia. The Assassination of Abraham Erskine and the Assassination of Billy Johnson. Both events are tonally different. One was planned and executed by a Neo-Nazi operative, while one was an accidental killing in a crossfire shootout. And let's look at the victims of said "assassinations". For one, you have a scientist who has made breakthroughs for their time, and has garnered quite the reputation and authority. And for the other, you have - as far as the common eye can see, if you remove any context about the Cloak and Dagger plot - a simple teenager who was accidentally shot at by a cop.

As you may have perceived, nothing about the latter examples scream "assassination". When a person is killed accidentally, nobody would use the terminology "assassination" in a conversation. You may as well say "he was killed" or "he was murdered", but nobody would casually say "oh, he was assassinated last night". Now, allow us to look at another article; the Assassination of Howard and Maria Stark. Now this fits the criteria of "assassination" perfectly. Two well-known persons of prominence and status were killed by a HYDRA assassin. That suits the article well.

So why am I telling you all of this? I would like to make a proposal, and add one small change towards the Event section of the Naming Policy that I think can better clarify the content of the event and can just help the wikia for the better: Add "Murder" as a title.

And how would we differentiate the two? It's simple. If you recall the definition for assassination, it contains two things: The killing must be pre-arranged and planned ahead of time, and the specific victim/targeted group has to be of some prominence on a grand scale - they have to be well-known (like the HYDRA leaders, or the Genetic Council). Again, look at the Assassination of Billy Johnson for a minute. A victim in a crossfire is not an assassination. That's an accidental murder. Murders can be classified as unlawful killings that lack premeditation and justification.

Now, there may be some abnormalities to this rule. Say, look at the Assassination of Ben Urich. Yes, it was planned to some degree, and he was of some prominence. Granted, it fits the criteria, but per the situation, it doesn't feel necessarily correct to classify it as an assassination, because the killing was deliberate and unjust. For those reasons, it should be classified as a murder.

Now, here is an example of another article which could benefit from a name change: the Assassination of Anderson and Eliza Schultz. It even says in the article that it "was an unplanned murder". That is a direct contradiction to the definition of assassination. Do you see the logic gap here? If you're still not convinced, let's take a look-see at some real-life examples. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. John Lennon was murdered. I don't have to explain those two events, as you probably know about them and what occurred in those events speak for themselves.

And for starters, which I didn't add in my initial post, I think here are a list of a few articles (incomplete list, just some off the top of my head) which could benefit from the name change. Once again to emphasize, there is a LOT more I feel than just those articles that need to be changed. Those are just a few standouts that I thought of in my head.

TL:DR, I'm proposing to switch out several "assassination" articles for "murder" events. In short, articles which describe the assassination(s) as an "unplanned murder" or "accidental kill" are the one that needs to be tended to.

I think that this change would greatly benefit the wikia, and it will keep things more organized. It will also make naming the events in the future much simpler, and more sufficient. Thank you for reading.

Mister Explicit 01:22, May 31, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion, at the very least for the "Planned/Unplanned" aspect. It feels weird to me to consider that people such as Agnes Kitsworth, Graciela Aguirre, Billy Johnson, Destiny Gonzalez... were assassinated. "Murder" would be a suitable alternative.--TraceFinder (talk) 13:51, June 4, 2019 (UTC)

and to add onto what I said, I'd also like to say, that per the Naming Policy, if this proposal was to be greenlit somewhere down the line, I'd change the definitions of "assassination" and "murder" as such:

Assassination: An event centered around the coordinated & pre-arranged death of an individual or group of individuals.

Murder: An event centered around the unlawful killing of an individual, regardless of premeditation.

Mister Explicit 01:14, June 10, 2019 (UTC)

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