S.H.I.E.L.D. Playground
Welcome to the Playground! On top of being 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.

2071 the-avengers-prev

Promotional Images

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)

SMH Promo Still 3

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)

Mythological Characters Category

Medicines Category

Category for Actors with Upcoming Roles

Category for Cloak and Dagger's visions


Alternate Reality for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Future

Now that Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D./Season Five is over, it is clear without a doubt that episodes Orientation Part One to Past Life all take place in an alternate bad future. That means that every character that first appear in them, such as Deke Shaw, Flint or Sinara are not from the main MCU timeline, but more importantly, the characters who got into that future by taking the slow path (Leo Fitz, Elena Rodriguez, Robin Hinton) are going to have different lives from now on, requiring to split their articles into alternate counterparts. Should we treat it like Framework and create alternate selves pages for everyone involved, including alternate histories of events, locations and objects? HBK123 (talk) 09:52, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

The only characters that need alternate articles are the ones seen in The Last Day, which includes Leo Fitz' version, and Robin Hinton. For now, the Fitz we saw returning to the past until The End will be treated as the one and the same in the main article. No other articles need splitting, items, events and locations, even the Lighthouse, don't need an alternate article. Use the Framework situation as a template for how to deal with alternate realities.--Shabook (talk) 11:08, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
There are however different articles for vehicles and locations of the Framework. There is a different article for the Zephyr One, for example. Or even Washington D.C.--Elledy92 (talk) 11:48, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
And what articles would need alternate articles? Certainly not the future characters. And not the items, because no matter their different history, items like the Odium are exactly the same item, unlike Framework items which were digital recreations, not the same item.--Shabook (talk) 11:59, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
I agree that items like the Odium or the Kree Battle Axe shouldn't be changed, since they are generic items. But important vehicles and locations like the Zephyr One of the Lighthouse should be splitted since they have a different story in the alternate future (the Lightouse being essentially turned into a space station).
Both the Lighthouse and the Zephyr One are the same physical items, with just another history in the ELE future.--Shabook (talk) 13:39, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

Also, What about merging all the timeline page after 2018 (related to this new timeline), into a single page about the events of the "Earth Destroyed Timeline"? --Elledy92 (talk) 12:05, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
Speaking strictly from an administrative POV, and not my personal opinion which I will keep for myself, timeline articles are fanon content right now, and all information is, or should be, available in the rest of well-sourced articles of this wiki.--Shabook (talk) 13:39, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand what the answer is to the question about page-moving, though. Is there going to be one collective page as Elledy has suggested? And which point is the wiki considering to be the point of divergence? When the team return from the future, when Coulson decides to slip the Centipede serum into Daisy's gauntlets, or something like that? It can't just be that when the team transported into the future they went into an alternate timeline, because otherwise Fitz could not have slept 74 years from the present into that future. The White Monolith might be considered capable of switching between timelines, but going to sleep isn't.BEJT (talk) 21:06, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
And that is something that we won't know for now, and we will probably have to wait until Season 6, which means more than a year. Marvel's rules for future timelines are that every alternate future is set actually in an alternate reality. That the ELE future is an alternate reality is not questionable anymore...--Shabook (talk) 21:16, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
OK, I think I get you. What does ELE stand for? And what do you suggest should be the existing articles? For example: "2017" showing both "2018" and "Earth Destroyed Timeline" (or whichever title) as "After"? Then 2018 just including this timeline's events and everything going forwards, and "Earth Destroyed Timeline" including the way things went down in the bad timeline, and the 2091-set episodes' events? Or at the point of divergence in 2018 a note referring to the other page? Basically, do you have an opinion on which pages should exist, and how it should be structured?BEJT (talk) 21:23, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
ELE stands for Extinction Level Event. Timeline for the altenate future should be condensed into a single article, similar to Before 20th Century. Not sure about the name yet.--Shabook (talk) 21:34, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
OK, cool. Just say whenever you think of a title. The only thing I wouldn't use is "Alternate" or "Alternative" because that suggests it was never going to be the case - but it was the original timeline and this new one is the change, as shown by Fitz's sleep and Robin feeling the shift to a new timeline. I might suggest "Original Timeline Future" or "Destroyed Earth Timeline Future" or "Lighthouse Timeline Future".BEJT (talk) 01:18, May 22, 2018 (UTC)

That the future the S.H.I.E.L.D. team saw at the beginning of Season Five was bad, there's no doubt about that. But that it was alternate - nope! Technically, it was the original future, the future that happened, the future they lived in. By changing the past (defeating Talbot) they have created an alternate timeline, a timeline they're now living in.--UskokS.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters - Playground 13:28, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
Technically, if the current reality is going to still be Earth-199999 (which is a fact, as Marvel Studios shoots down anything so ambitious from Marvel Television), then the future where Earth is destroyed is an alternate reality with another numerical designation.--Shabook (talk) 13:39, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
I understand that Shabook, but I feel Uskok is right since Fitz fell asleep in the present day and slept through into the future. The White Monolith might be considered capable of switching between timelines, but going to sleep isn't. As well as this, Robin feels the shift from the original timeline to the new timeline. Is it possible however that since time is fluid, according to Simmons at the end of the episode, that Earth-199999 is the final, cemented timeline in the MCU, but the alternative futures essentially get discarded as different designations?BEJT (talk) 21:06, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

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


Infinity Stones Enhancement

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)

Characters of unknown species

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)

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

Update Template


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)

Event Naming Policy Addition Suggestion

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 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)

Recent Changes

So, I noticed that the "Recent Changes" tab on the right of the screen was disabled and replaced with the Discord Chat tab. (Or, maybe it's just the bug from my side, I dunno) This is kind of inconvenient, at least for me. Is there any chance that "Recent Changes" will be enabled again? - King Nasara (talk) 19:31, June 16, 2019 (UTC)

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