Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki

We advise caution when dealing with any recently-released media involving multiversal subjects. Please do not make assumptions regarding confusing wording, other sites' speculation, and people's headcanon around the internet. Remember, only this site's policies fully apply in this site.

READ MORE

Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki
Advertisement
Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki
S.H.I.E.L.D. Playground.png
Welcome to the Playground! On top of being one of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s headquarters, this is also the general discussion page for the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki! The Playground is where this Wiki community comes together to organize and discuss projects for the Wiki. To see the most recent discussions, scroll down the page.


Archive
Archives

IMAX images

S.H.I.E.L.D. Third Incarnation

Collapsible Alias List

For certain character articles, from the perspective of a reader, it is a detriment to see that a lot of the aliases are fluffed with very basic throwaway words/insults and some that may not be notably associated with the character. My suggestion is not to remove them, but implement a collapsible table within the character info-box for the alias section that prioritizes some of the larger, well-known and distinct aliases (for example: the boldened ones > more notable main aliases directly associated with the specific character > broader reference words).

This would especially be helpful for characters who have over 10-15 aliases, so having the option to condense the more lengthier lists by installing a collapsible table I think would be adequate. This would also save time for readers on mobile from scrolling down (in the case of longer lists) to make reaching other parts of the info-box and the rest of the article faster and less time-consuming.

I'm open on discussing or re-negotiating the alias number caps, or the organization of how these aliases will be presented. The main purpose of this proposal is to integrate a collapsible table for long lists of aliases in the character info-box, as I think it is beneficial to both editors and readers.

Mister Explicit (message wall) 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, and we have precedent for how it would work with our Kevin Feige article, whose table could be made into an alias template for general use if an alias list surpasses 10 listings, other than the primary alias and nicknames. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 20:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I also fully agree with this proposal, I can't seem to think of any downsides to it (aside from having to implament it, which is something I will glady help with), perhaps we could even make it so all alias that aren't a nickname (Tony Stark, Matt Murdock, Rhodes, et.) or a codename should be collapsible . - E-Scope04 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
So would it be a little something like this? - Ewysgarcoyustcrouiwetsnro - My Blogs - Message Wall - 06:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
That was exactly what I had in mind, yes. :) Transparent Endgame Logo.png Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord 04:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm a fan as well, though not for the appearances section in any capacity. This is just for the aliases. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 04:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
A collapsable list would be much better in my opinion. Personally I would go as far to say that the guidelines for aliases should be redefined or reworked. The problem with the alias list as it currently stands is I think if you actually were to calculate it, the percentage of aliases for all characters that are one-off jokes or comments greatly surpasses the amount of traditional aliases, in the form of codenames or nicknames. - Blatay (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
A list would be so great for characters like Iron Man who have a ton of nicknames because he's referenced in so many MCU projects, including Marvel TV. - IP Films (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I 1000% agree with this idea. I really like how the wiki has all of the aliases, I think that's a cool feature, but it can be hard differentiating between ones that are actually used by the character. As an in-universe example, if I were to see Spider-Man on the street and say "hey, clown" he probably wouldn't turn around, but if I were to call him Iron Spider he would. Many people have complained about it "not being actual aliases" but this idea is a win-win as it doesn't take away all of that work while also complying to the complaints. This just helps differentiate the aliases more and stop some clutter in the box. - LR2159 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Another thing I want to mention is that it should be all of the bold aliases, but there should be exceptions. For example on Alphonso Mackenzie's article. He has "Mack" that isn't bolded but should definitely be above the collapsible list, Or "Leo Fitz" for Leopold Fitz. - LR2159 (talk) 2:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal. With characters making more appearances, especially with television characters, main characters could easily have more than 30 aliases. With collapsible lists, this would make the infoboxes shorter and like the original proposal stated, reduce the time to scroll to the main body of the article.IC228 |I LOVE|YOU|3000|

03:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is going through a phase of exponential growing, not only in the amount of characters, but in content as well. With Phase Four already outnumbering Phase One-Three alone when it comes to amount of content, and I am sure, that as I have, other users have noticed the retcons in the MCU, some mistakes made that contradicted previous continuity (What If...? divergence moments), information known from The Art of Guardians of the Galaxy being retconned by the events of Avengers: Infinity War (such as Death's story), the possible upcoming introduction of Lylla in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 ignoring the established lore seen in Guardians of the Galaxy, the re design of Thanos in The Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron and Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, the heavy retcons to the Mandarin's mythos in Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, and of course the timeline, Iron Man being retconned to take place in 2009 or Black Widow establishing the Escape from the Raft takes place weeks after the airport battle when previous content established it happened a couple of days later. We also have the recent confirmation that Clint Barton's Homestead is located in Iowa, when AoU material previously hinted at a Missouri location.

These examples make me think that the time has come to finally address these changes in our articles from an out-of-universe perspective. In the past, such contradictions were ignored in the articles or simply taken out, for example, Nick Fury's line saying the events of Thor were "last year" to 2012, when they were in 2010, the quote is featured in the articles, but we take out the "Last year" bit of the sentence. We also have the mention to Stephen Strange giving a press conference on May 4th 2016 in WHiH Newsfront when the timeline doesn't add up with the events of Doctor Strange, which has been "ommited" in some form from Strange's article.

My proposal is to add a ===Continuity=== section (a better name can be discussed) under the Behind the Scenes section (when needed) to notice the changes to the character's continuity within the universe. If you guys take a look at Xu Wenwu's Behind the Scenes section you will see it is a bit crowded and kind of messy due to the several retcons the character has had throughout the year. My idea is instead of using bulletpoints, we would just write paragraphs (using references) to detail the changes in movies, TV series, events, wars, items and characters' articles. Only when needed of course.

What do you think of this? I would like everyone's input.

Marvelus (message wall) 20:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to start off by saying that I am enticed by this idea. However, there remains a lot to be discussed. For instance, I feel like this would only apply to very specific articles and there would need to be some precedent to warrant a subsection like this. There shouldn't be continuity sections applied to instances where there has only been one or two minor retcons. Another minor critique but I don't think it deserves a level 3 heading ( `=== ===`) but instead level 4? Or another alternative orientation. With this being said, I believe it is absolutely important to address these when applicable, and I am in support of this idea, however way it is integrated.Transparent Endgame Logo.png Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 21:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure! I don't know if I were clear, but it would be only applicable when needed. For example, it was retroactively added that Isaiah was a subject to the Super Soldier Serum when it was previously established that only Steve was, but that isn't required to be added in continuity. But I agree, we would need to think of set of rules as to when this section becomes relevant. For example, there are some articles that do not have Trivia nor Behind the Scenes section because they are not needed. I thought of a three level heading becuase it would be under a two level heading section, which is Behind the Scenes. Marvelus (message wall) 21:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I am going to oppose the idea of making this a level four heading, that would stylistically be a bit broken in my opinion. It should be a level three if it is under a level two. All other headings of its kind are. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I misread the proposal and assumed Behind the Scenes was a level 3 when it wasn't. That is my bad. Transparent Endgame Logo.png Mister ExplicitMessage WallContribsDiscord - 04:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, if we're counting Isaiah being a recipient of the serum as a retcon, then a lot of what we're getting now is "retcon." I think retcons should be considered as things that contradict what we've been told, and not so much applied to things expanding the lore. MJLogan95 (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Although I do like the idea, it will come with a lot of controversy of what to put in the section and what not to. But if people can communicate then it could be very helpful. I also don't like the idea of leaving out potentially important information just because it has a retcon. So I think this should be applied. It is a wiki, so everything should be added, and this is a good way to do it. - LR2159 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
As I understand it, such retconned continuity, as long as it is reconcilable or explicitly modified purposely, would remain, essentially just as it is now. This section would just allow for some clarification that not everything lines up. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I am very much in favor of this proposal, and think it is a far better solution than the lengthy and uncategorized retcon lists that you see in Xu Wenwu's article, as you pointed out. I think it has a lot of potential to assist readers who may be confused about contradictory information. latest?cb=20200507061542&format=original - BlogsMessage WallGuestbook 00:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm in favor of trying out this proposal. Up until Endgame we had people reclassify the events of The Avengers or Spider-Man: Homecoming due to the "8 years later" thing & there wasn't really anything we could add In-Universe on those pages to explain that it was an error; all we did was omit the timeline-breaking references. Just throwing it out there: what if we used "Inconsistencies" rather than "Continuity"? MJLogan95 (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal, although we need to be careful about what information is actually a "retcon". For articles like the one for "Xu Wenwu", it seems worth having a separate section addressing this topic. I also like the idea of using paragraphs instead of bullet points in the section. David Kaique (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I will respond to everyone here.
1. The level heading would have to be three, as it would be under Behind the Scenes section. I disagree with Rman that it should go under Trivia because Trivia is for in-universe details, the Continuity section would be "out-of-universe" approach. Detailing the project, source, year of release and stuff like that.
2. MJLogan95 your point about Isaiah is very valid, while it is a retcon I consider the Continuity section to only expand on retcons that cannot be considered (as you put it) as "expanding the lore". For example, the Staff of One from Runaways. Revealed during Season 1 by showrunners to be an artifact of technology, made in Wizards Lab, and then we find out the show just ignored that and it is now a magic devise that was existing during Tina's young years, before her time at Wizards. Isaiah still could be noted, for example, if someone reads The Art of the Incredible Hulk and finds that said book says never in the MCU since Rogers the Serum was tested. Since those books are canon material and what is explained there is the intentions of the canon during production. For example, The Art of Ant-Man and the Wasp says Janet used the pieces of the Yellowjacket suit to make her own, teasing that Darren was dead, but now we know he is coming back as M.O.D.O.K. for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. However, the introduction of Echo into Fisk's story would not go in Continuity as she is just part of what MJLogan defined as "expanding the lore"..
3. I agree with you LR2159, that we need to put some rules. And I think Rman's concept works with my idea, that only retconned continuity should be added. Nothing that we can consider as "expanding the lore", for example, if it is mentioned in later media that Uncle Ben is in fact alive, that is a retcon because BtS material from both movies explicitly said that he did die. Another example I can think of is in The Wakanda Files, a canon book that has a letter written by Edwin Jarvis in present day. That can be noted in Continuity as a mistake.
4. I am not fond of using the name of "Inconsistencies" rather than "Continuity" because it would be a description out of universe about how the continuity of the MCU has been changing throughout the years, not merely inconsistencies. For example, a recast of an actor would go in Continuity, it is a change out-of-universe that impacted in-universe media, just look at the depiction of Hulk in What If...?, tossing aside Norton's look for the character. Redesigns would also go there.
5. Thanks for your opinion David! And yes, everything that can be explained as "Expanding the Lore" would not go in that section. But I think there is a wiggle room, for example, IF DSitMoM explains there is more than one Darkhold, we would have to add that in the Continuity section of the Darkhold article, while it helps reconcile two books with two different designs, it is worth noting that. Also, in a book from Marvel Studios, it was revealed that Loki was controlled/influenced by the Mind Stone in 2012, when we have evidence from the past that he was not being influenced, he was motivated by himself. I would like to point out that Wanda Maximoff being revealed to be a witch and that is the reason of how she survived Strucker's experiments would also be added in continuity, as there was not hint of that until Marvel Studios Visual Dictionary.
Basically, these are my points. I will look forward to discuss this further. Marvelus (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
To illustrate my concept for this idea, I made this brief page. -- Marvelus (talk) 2:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I like the idea of this section, and think the need for at least some form of it is becoming apparent. I have a few things I'd like to respond to, and some suggestions:
  • I too think we need to be clear about the rules, and I think I have an idea for a large part of how to draw the line:
    • It must be a clear change in continuity moving forward, not a momentary mistake meant to be ignored in the progression of the franchise.
    • It must be something that Marvel have shown no genuine effort (Matt Shakman "I imagine it's the same book" with the Darkhold) to reconcile, and any reconciliation is just strained fan theory.
      • A theory may exist that works, but it is purely speculation, not properly aided by what has been shown/stated. I more than anyone am constantly trying to reconcile things, retcons don't sit well with me (aside from recasts) - but it's theorising. And some things are little enough assumption (e.g. that the Avengers just believed Sharon was dead in Endgame) that we can reconcile it within the article, but it's still an awkward forced assumption.
      • If Marvel do end up addressing/solving it a significant amount of time later, the continuity note is not removed, just added to to say they solved it.
  • In terms of the examples given so far, they would sort as:
    • Mistakes, not continuity changes:
      • What If...? divergence moments.
      • Fury's "last year" comment in The Avengers.
      • Edwin Jarvis being alive in present day.
      • "8 years later".
    • Shifts in continuity:
      • Death's story being changed.
      • Lylla, should this happen.
      • Thanos redesign, including retroactive application to 1995 and 2014.
      • The leader of the Ten Rings going by "Mandarin".
      • Perhaps the Iron Man timeline - but only in the sense that it was set in 2008 when it came out. These would be the only timeline things to count. Got to be careful where you draw the line with timeline things.
      • The Black Widow ending timeline also for this reason.
      • The Barton homestead location (while Laura's phone area code establishes it could be as little as 10 miles south of Iowa, the idea that it can be both that area code and Iowa is indeed a change).
      • Doctor Strange's May 2016 interview (fan theories could suggest it was prerecorded, but this is just fan theory). That said, this one is borderline I feel, since it being prerecorded is not much of a stretch.
      • The Super Soldier Serum, only insofar as if the book confirmed categorically that no one ever took it other than Steve. If a character had said it in The Incredible Hulk, that character can be mistaken in the story so a reveal of secret subjects is in no way a contradiction - but if we're treating book "facts" as the voice of God in the MCU effectively, then I can see that argument being made. I admittedly got a bit lost in the discussion over the Super Soldier Serum suggestion.
      • Similarly for the Staff of One. If the showrunners said something definitively (lies to avoid spoilers aside, and this is not that) and then changed it, that counts as a change, not just expanding the lore.
      • The Uncle Ben hypothetical the same as the Staff of One. If they said definitively that he is dead, revealing otherwise is a change.
      • The Hulk redesign and recasting, including retroactive application to 2010.
      • The Darkhold redesign/ignorance from Marvel Studios.
      • Loki the same as the Super Soldier Serum.
      • Other wxamples from the List of Retcons blog. (There are ways of reconciling these, but they involve work from fans which Marvel have not thrown fans a bone over/acknowledged.)
    • Expanding the lore, not a shift in past continuity:
      • Fisk's time with Maya.
      • Wanda having powers. I don't really understand the sentence: "I would like to point out that Wanda Maximoff being revealed to be a witch and that is the reason of how she survived Strucker's experiments would also be added in continuity, as there was not hint of that until Marvel Studios Visual Dictionary."
    • Too early to comment over Darren Cross, really.
  • As such, I believe the best name for the section would be something like "Shifts in Continuity". I believe this communicates the point of the section, regarding continuity seemingly shifting, changing - how it isn't just about all things continuity.
  • I'm not sure, however, how the section would help the writing of articles where there are continuity errors, such as with the example given about Fury's "last year" line or Jarvis in modern day. I'm interested in any ideas about how to deal with this while still having hard-and-fast rules for the section.
  • I think it could be helpful to provide some template examples in setting out the rules to show the users why certain things do and do not fit, where they can go, "Oh, this fits the same sort of template as this example, so this can/can't go in."BEJT (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Team Thor's Reality Name

Team Thor's reality desperately needs a name as the shorts have been out for 6 years. Although I know it isn't a priority with Multiverse of Madness coming out soon and that there seems to be no new content set in this reality coming. While I think "Team Thor" works well enough it is not allowed under the Naming Policy. So the best one I can come up with "Roommate Thor". The other ones I can come up is: "Thor stays on Earth", "Thor and Hulk stays on Earth", or "Hulk stays on Earth" but all of those seem too long.

Also I'm entirely sure if this is the correct place to discuss this.

DavisRanger (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Lighthouse! is the place to talk about this, but make sure to talk with the mods to ee if you can add this-Ewysgarcoyustcrouiwetsnro - My Blogs - Message Wall - 03:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, Thanks!. I'll purpose it there than. DavisRanger (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Advertisement