Talk: Treehouse

Welcome to the Treehouse! On top of being one of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s bases, this is also the general discussion page for the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki! The Treehouse is the successor to the Playground and serves as the spot where the Wiki community comes together to organize and discuss projects for the Wiki. Proposals suggested on the Playground, even those that received verdicts from the previous administration, are eligible to be reproposed on the Treehouse! To see the most recent discussions, scroll down the page.

Archives

Location & Race/Species Constitution

Locations

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

Only locations that are specifically mentioned will be listed as "(mentioned)". Locations that are "levels up" will not be listed as "(indirectly mentioned)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJLogan95 (message wall • contribs) 09:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC) {{{sig}}}

Something that this wiki has done is treat every mentioned location as a mention of where that place also is. For instance, when a character says "Oh, I went to Buenos Aires last year", we don't just add (mentioned) on the Buenos Aires page, we also add (mentioned) to the Argentina page, the South America page, Earth's page and the Solar System page. To give a U.S. centric example, when a character says "I was born in Albany" we add "(mentioned)" to the New York page, the United States page, the North America page, the Earth page and the Solar System page. There are four Wiki Staff members right now (two admins, two content moderators, not including thread moderators) and this decision has been split among us. Two of us believe that if a character mentions Albany, then the page for the state of New York should not get the "(mentioned)" and neither should the United States page, the North America page, or any other page above it; the "New York" page for instance would only get "(mentioned)" if the person said "I was born in Albany, New York." One half of the Staff team is of the mind only places that are specifically mentioned should be listed as such, while the other half of the Staff team disagrees.

A proposed idea, intended to serve as a compromise, was that we limit the "mentioning" to just one level up. So if someone mentions "Albany" then "(mentioned)" gets added to the New York state page, but it is not added to the page for "United States"; if someone mentions "New York", "(mentioned)" is added to the page for "United States" but not the page for "North America"; if someone mentions "North America" then "(mentioned)" is added to the page for "Earth" but not the page for "Solar System". A proposal was also offered where we would switch the "(mentioned)" to "(indirectly mentioned)". These proposals also ended in a tie decision, with half of the Staff team disagreeing with this idea as well. With the Staff team decision stuck in a deadlock, the deciding party shall be you, the community. Feel free to reply directly below this if you wish to engage in a discussion. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   20:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: This applies to Landmarks as well. If a character says "I went to the Empire State Building" then currently "(mentioned)" get added to New York City, New York, United States, North America, Earth and Solar System. The proposed suggestions would have either limiting it to just "New York City", having "New York City" be listed as an indirect mention, or just not adding "(mentioned)" to any other page's Infobox/Appearances section aside from the landmark's page. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Vote

Voting eligibility requires site editors to have a certain level of productivity in order to participate in votes affecting the wiki and its community. Users who do not meet the eligibility requirements will have any votes they cast stricken from the record by Staff members. Votes by any users whose accounts are younger than three (3) months or have not been on our wiki for more than three (3) months, have fewer than seventy-five (75) valid edits (as defined below, or who are using sockpuppet accounts will not be counted.

• In order to be eligible to vote, a user account must be at least three (3) months old and must have made at least seventy-five (75) constructive edits. Edits to userpages, talk pages or sandboxes do not count, nor do automated edits or edits that have been reverted or undone.
• A user who is blocked is also not allowed to cast votes for the entire duration of their block.

If you vote Support, then you are in support of the proposed idea to allow for "(mentioned)" to be in effect for "one level up". So with this in effect, since New York (state) is one level up from Albany, with "second level" being "United States", any mention of Albany in the MCU allows for "(mentioned)" to be added to the New York state page.

If you vote Oppose, then you believe that the wiki should only add "(mentioned)" to whatever is specifically mentioned. So if Albany is mentioned, only the Albany page gets "(mentioned)" added to its Infobox/Appearances; the pages for "New York", "United States" and "North America" do not receive "(mentioned)" unless someone specifically mentions those places.

If you vote Neutral, it will be treated as being in support of the compromise where locations that are not specifically mentioned receive "(indirectly mentioned)". So if someone mentions Albany, the page for New York state would have (indirectly mentioned)" added to it. The "one level up only" restriction of the compromise still applies here.

Support

• I am in support of the proposal of one level up being mentioned. Although I am hesitant to list it as indirectly mentioned, I am not against it. I am against not listing it as mentioned in any capacity, due to the fact that if someone were to mention the city of Miami, most people would take that as a mention of the state of Florida in casual conversation. If you are born in Miami you are born in Florida. We would also be listing it as *[[Miami]], [[Florida]] <small>(mentioned)</small> on media pages without having Florida as mentioned on Florida's page which should not be the case. As such, I am in support of this proposal. - Fish Master 41 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• Only locations that are specifically mentioned should be listed as such. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   20:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• I was the one that brought this to staff so I oppose the current practice. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 20:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Why would we list mentioned on New York if only a city was mentioned? Only the location/landmark itself should receive (mentioned) on its page. - GarrettPlayzRBLX | Message Wall • Contributions 16:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• I concur - E-Scope | Message Wall • Contribs - 00:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• What others have said. SeichanGrey (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

• I'm in support of the compromise (though maybe two levels up, stopping at the country if necessary so continents only get it if the country is mentioned) -Jessica3801 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Result

Voting period ends with five (5) votes in favor of only listing things that are actually mentioned as "(mentioned)" on the wiki, with one (1) vote for one level up while retaining "(mentioned)" (Support tier), and one (1) vote for the compromised offer of having it listed as "(indirectly mentioned)", with the stipulation of two levels up. With majority in favor of the "Oppose" tier, the wiki shall henceforth only list locations that are actually mentioned as "(mentioned)", and shall edit pre-existing pages to match this new standard. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   09:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Race/Species

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

Race/Species are to be listed as "(mentioned)" only if they are specifically mentioned, and is not to be listed, not even as "(indirectly mentioned)", when someone who is part of that species is mentioned by their own name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJLogan95 (message wall • contribs) 09:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC) {{{sig}}}

In a similar vein to the above, Staff find themselves in a deadlock when it comes to Races/Species on the Wiki. If "Thanos" is mentioned, do we add "(mentioned)" to the Titans page? Or should only the "Thanos" page list it, because only Thanos was mentioned in dialogue and not "Titans", or should "Titans" also get "(mentioned)" because Thanos himself is a Titan? Whenever Star-Lord mentions Yondu, should "(mentioned)" only be added to Yondu's page, or should it also be added to the page of his species, which is "Centaurians"? Once again, the deciding party shall be you, the community. Like before, feel free to reply directly below this if you wish to engage in a discussion about this topic. Otherwise, proceed to vote. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   20:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Vote

Voting eligibility requires site editors to have a certain level of productivity in order to participate in votes affecting the wiki and its community. Users who do not meet the eligibility requirements will have any votes they cast stricken from the record by Staff members. Votes by any users whose accounts are younger than three (3) months or have not been on our wiki for more than three (3) months, have fewer than seventy-five (75) valid edits (as defined below, or who are using sockpuppet accounts will not be counted.

• In order to be eligible to vote, a user account must be at least three (3) months old and must have made at least seventy-five (75) constructive edits. Edits to userpages, talk pages or sandboxes do not count, nor do automated edits or edits that have been reverted or undone.
• A user who is blocked is also not allowed to cast votes for the entire duration of their block.

If you vote Support, then you are in support of retaining the status quo where "(mentioned)" is applied to the pages of the species of the characters who are mentioned. If someone mentions Yondu, "(mentioned)" is added to the Centaurians page. If someone mentions Ronan the Accuser, "(mentioned)" is added to the Kree page.

If you vote Oppose, then you believe that the wiki should only add "(mentioned)" to whatever is specifically mentioned. So if Yondu is mentioned, only his page gets "(mentioned)" and his page alone.

If you vote Neutral, it will be treated as being in support of the compromise where races/species that are not specifically mentioned receive "(indirectly mentioned)". So if someone mentions Yondu , the page for Centaurians will state "(indirectly mentioned)".

Support

• I am in support of the race being mentioned as well. Thanos is a Titan, Thor is an Asgardian. In a world where being a member of a certain species is a very important fact, I think it should be a mention. - Fish Master 41 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• Only that which is mentioned should receive the "(mentioned)". Only when people mention the Kree specifically should that be added to their page, not whenever some mentions Ronan or Starforce or Supreme Intelligence. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   20:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• I agree as well as I brought this up. A mention of Ronan is a mention of A Kree. Not The Kree. It is a different. In other words, it is a person that is a Kree, not the Kree themselves. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 21:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• If the race itself is not mentioned, I don't see why we'd put any level of (mentioned). - GarrettPlayzRBLX | Message Wall • Contributions 00:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that only that what has been mentioned directly should have the mentioned tag. I do not know why this was never discussed back when I was an admin on this wikia. -TomasDerksen (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• What others have said. SeichanGrey (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

• Mentioning Thanos is mentioning Titans, albeit indirectly -Jessica3801 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Result

Voting period ends with five (5) votes in favor of only listing races/species when they are specifically mentioned as "(mentioned)" on the wiki, with one (1) vote for retaining "(mentioned)" for when a member of that species is mentioned by their own given name, and one (1) vote for retaining "(indirectly mentioned)" for when a member of that species is mentioned by their own given name. With majority in favor of the "Oppose" tier, the wiki shall henceforth only list races/species that are specifically mentioned as "(mentioned)"; pre-existing pages are to be edited in order to remove any "(mentioned)" or "(indirectly mentioned)" that do not qualify under this new standard. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   09:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Infobox Image Change

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

Implemented {{{sig}}}

A few weeks ago, while discussing infobox images, User:E-Scope04 brought up how many sites such as wikipedia change the infobox image from latest appearance to a more general image of the characters once they die. I think that could be a cool idea for the wiki to adapt and to put some personality into some of these infobox images that are bound by bad images of their latest appearance. To maintain fair decisions, the way I propose it would work, is that when a character dies, staff chooses a set of images and the wiki has a vote on which image out of that set should be the infobox image. With this change, we could have infoboxes that encaptulate the characters like for example, a crop of the Iron Man 3 Poster that shows the Iron Legion in the background for Iron Man. Or we could decide to have a crop of the Black Widow character poster that has the black widow symbol in the background. I just think this could be a cool idea to implement.

To decide if this idea will be implemented, there will be a vote below that follows Tier 1 rules from the Consensus and Voting Policy. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 22:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Vote

Voting eligibility requires site editors to have a certain level of productivity in order to participate in votes affecting the wiki and its community. Users who do not meet the eligibility requirements will have any votes they cast stricken from the record by Staff members. Votes by any users whose accounts are younger than three (3) months or have not been on our wiki for more than three (3) months, have fewer than seventy-five (75) valid edits (as defined below, or who are using sockpuppet accounts will not be counted.

• In order to be eligible to vote, a user account must be at least three (3) months old and must have made at least seventy-five (75) constructive edits. Edits to userpages, talk pages or sandboxes do not count, nor do automated edits or edits that have been reverted or undone.
• A user who is blocked is also not allowed to cast votes for the entire duration of their block.

If you vote Support then you agree to implement the proposed change to infobox images.

If you vote Oppose then you vote to maintain our current system of using infobox images showing the character's latest appearance prior to their death.

Support

• I proposed and I support. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 22:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• I also like this idea. - DemKnux (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• I agree for ones like Maria Hill with her Secret Invasion image but I'd say the two examples given are fine as is. - Cadennnnn (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• This is a really good idea! - Bryschec (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• I support - The One Who Theorizes (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• I support this proposal. - Fish Master 41 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

• Not that it particularly matters this late, but I am against this proposal. I’m not a fan of having too many exceptions to rules like this. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️‍⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 02:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

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

HYDRA -> Hydra Rename

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

"HYDRA" changed to "Hydra" • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 00:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC) {{{sig}}}

The naming of HYDRA on the wiki is something that has been in debate for a very long time and I just happened to stumble upon many instances pointing to "Hydra" while I have been doing other things on the wiki. For context, the wiki uses "HYDRA" because of it's use in its first appearance, Captain America: The First Avenger. This is a good reason that I do not dispute. However, it seems as though there are actually more uses of "Hydra" from the movie anyway. For example, the Disney+ subtitles now say Hydra (despite the synopsis using "HYDRA") and even props use "Hydra" as seen in props like this and this. Additionally, the appearances from Hydra from then on almost exclusively use the "Hydra" spelling, including Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., who credit characters as "Hydra". I have been told that the Season One closed captions use "HYDRA" but that has since been changed to "Hydra".

This has caused many issues on the wiki including the misnaming of episodes such as Love in the Time of Hydra and What If... Captain Carter Fought the Hydra Stomper?, which use the "Hydra" spelling but due to consistency, the wiki uses "HYDRA". Related to the consistency aspect, we use the spelling of Hydra Stomper despite him being noted as "Hydra". Even with that chosen naming convention, we use Madame Hydra anyways.

One last thing I would have to say is that although it seems the comics used both spellings, it primarily used "Hydra" and we should too based off of the fact that "Hydra" is used throughout all of the MCU and more than "HYDRA". - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 01:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I think my preference is, rather than a rename, we allow both so that titles can be accurate and we're not consistently undoing it. The books that I have read (which isn't all of them yet) also use "Hydra" for what it's worth. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️‍⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 01:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jessica's preference personally.    Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   12:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how optimal this is. How do we use both? If a facility and its members are "HYDRA" in one thing and "Hydra" in another, which spelling do we use for the location and character pages? We can't keep oscillating between the two spellings on the Wiki. We'd have to standardize one. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   13:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I do not know either. I understanding wanting to use both, but it is not really optimal and Hydra would be the more primarily used one anyways. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 22:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If Hydra is used more commonly than HYDRA throughout much of the franchise, it would seem like this has become the intended spelling of the name in the franchise, even if it might be a retcon from TFA. I'd be willing to accept Jessica's proposal as well, but I'd need more clarification on how we could actually use both spellings, particularly given that different spellings could be used to refer to the organization in the same piece of media. Logo8th (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, if Hydra is used more, then reluctantly, I'd have to go with that. - GarrettSMW | Message Wall • Contributions 16:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

While I do think both can be used in universe, I am strongly in favor of keeping the standard of HYDRA on the wiki, we've seen this spelling used before in Captain America: The First Avenger, the first introduction of HYDRA to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as Raff pointed out. However, it has also been used in other places, such as this S.H.I.E.L.D. Personnel File on Steve Rogers which clearly uses the HYDRA capitalization in promotional material for The Avengers. -    Fish Master 41 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I think any episode title or character pages can be renamed (Hydra Stomper → Hydra Stomper, "Love in the Time of Hydra" → "Love in the Time of Hydra") but I think the name of the organization on our Wiki should remain as HYDRA. While "Hydra" is used more often I am also strongly in favor of retaining HYDRA on the wiki as that's how it was introduced to us as and the MCU hasn't entirely dropped that spelling. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

For the record, What If...? uses "HYDRA" in its subtitles/closed captioning. Which means the latest MCU reference to the organization uses the all-caps version. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   13:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

However, credits and episode titles use Hydra. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 15:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This evidence table, showcasing the times "HYDRA" was used vs. "Hydra" was compiled by Raff2159. Treating all usages in one season or movie as a single entry, we have eleven (11) usages of HYDRA and sixteen (16) usages of Hydra. However, some might complain that a show having several seasons counted separately skews the data and that a project should only count as one entry. Therefore, if we treat Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. as one entry instead of seven for its seven seasons and What If...? as one entry instead of three for its three seasons, there are nine (9) usages of HYDRA and ten (10) usages of Hydra. When we add in books like tie-in junior novelizations, as well as the promotional file and trading cards from Thunderbolts*, all of which use "Hydra", then we are at nine (9) usages of HYDRA and eighteen (18) usages of Hydra.

With this data in mind, we are holding a vote for this rename proposal. There will be four options you can vote for:

Option #1: HYDRA: This option retains our status quo of using the "HYDRA" spelling on the Wiki.

Option #2: Hydra: This option changes the spelling of "HYDRA" to "Hydra" everywhere on the Wiki.

Option #3: Mixed Usage favoring HYDRA: In this option, we continue using "HYDRA" as the primary spelling on the Wiki for the organization, items, events, locations, etc. However, usages of "Hydra" would be used when deemed appropriate, such as the spelling of Madame Hydra (who for the record currently has it spelled as "Hydra") as well as potentially changing the name of "HYDRA Stomper" to "Hydra Stomper," as well as for any items or events that have been officially spelled as "Hydra". (ex. if a location appeared with a title card saying "Hydra Research Base" then that location and its event page(s) would be have the "Hydra" spelling while "HYDRA" continues to be used as the norm for other pages.)

Option #4: Mixed Usage favoring Hydra: This option is the inverse of Option #3. We rename the pages, including organization, items, events, locations, etc. to the "Hydra" spelling, although we would use "HYDRA" if an event or a location was officially listed with the all-caps spelling (ex. if a location in an upcoming project has a title card saying "HYDRA Research Base" means that location and its event page(s) would have the "HYDRA" spelling while "Hydra" would be used as the norm on other pages.)

As we move onto the voting phase, please read the section below to ensure that you are eligible to vote. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   02:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

EDIT: A poster from the fifth season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has the "HYDRA" spelling while the subtitles in Thunderbolts* features the "Hydra" spelling. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   09:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Vote

This is a Tier 2 vote

Voting eligibility requires site editors to have a certain level of productivity in order to participate in votes affecting the wiki and its community. Users who do not meet the eligibility requirements will have any votes they cast stricken from the record by Staff members. Votes by any users whose accounts are younger than three (3) months or have not been on our wiki for more than three (3) months, have fewer than seventy-five (75) valid edits (as defined below, or who are using sockpuppet accounts will not be counted.

• In order to be eligible to vote, a user account must be at least three (3) months old and must have made at least seventy-five (75) constructive edits. Edits to userpages, talk pages or sandboxes do not count, nor do automated edits or edits that have been reverted or undone.
• A user who is blocked is also not allowed to cast votes for the entire duration of their block.

Option 1

• I think on-screen usage is important. If we eliminate the trading cards/TB* file promo and the books, HYDRA is used 9 times while Hydra is used 10 times; it's practically tied. However, I am choosing to go with HYDRA because that is a spelling that was featured in HYDRA's first appearance (in Captain America: The First Avenger), it's a spelling they've continued to use over the years, and the very last project to feature the group (What If S3) also features the HYDRA spelling. I however acknowledge that the evidence for "Hydra" is also sound as that spelling was also used in The First Avenger and across multiple other instances, so if that option won, it wouldn't be unwarranted. However, I prefer the HYDRA spelling. I also think that Options 3 and 4 aren't really feasible or optimal as alternating between two spellings would be a headache. In my opinion, the best bet is to just standardize one spelling and stick with it. For this reason, I vote for retaining "HYDRA" as the standard Wiki spelling. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   03:11 original comment was posted 02:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with everything MJLogan95 has laid out. The fact that it's so close would have me keep this option. Starting with Captain America: The First Avenger and being seen on-screen as HYDRA in projects like The Avengers and in the closed captioning of projects as recent as What If...? put HYDRA well within it's rights to stay capitalized. The notion that the capitalization is outdated is simply not true, appearing as recently as December 2024. This is the way the page should stay. -    Fish Master 41 | Message Wall • Contributions   19:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Edit: New evidence has been discovered that shows HYDRA is used exclusively on-screen during Season Five of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. which was not included in the table above, further cementing my vote for option one. -    Fish Master 41 | Message Wall • Contributions   20:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
    • To be very specific, “HYDRA” is used for the logo for the preporatory academy. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 20:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Option 2

• I don't really see how HYDRA could be an valid option given the evidence. Subtitles have been shown to be "iffy" at times. Not that it cannot be used as a source, but compared to the other evidence, Hydra is the clear option here even with the fact that it will be a hassle to change. Also to note, Captain America: The First Avenger used "Hydra" as well. I don't understand the argument about it being the first used. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 03:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'm favoring Option 2 overall, although I am also completely okay with a compromise like Option 4. It's obvious that after a point, the capitalization just got outdated. Hydra. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 03:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• One problem I have with using HYDRA is that it doesn't combine with the rest of the organizations called by its acronyms (especially those that are from the real world). Like for example: NASA is National Aeronautics and Space Administration, FBI is Federal Bureau of Investigation, CIA is Central Intelligence Agency and TVA is Time Variance Authority. What is HYDRA? Nothing, it means nothing. Hydra gets its name from Lernaean Hydra and it is written like that. - asner •д• | llɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ - suoᴉʇnqᴉɹʇuoɔ 03:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Just adding a note here, but just because something is written in all caps doesn’t necessarily mean it must be an acronym. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 14:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Incursion Lee (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• The amount of in-universe sources that use "Hydra" far surpasses those that use "HYDRA", and this is very clear just from the evidence table. While it would be easy to default to the comics which also prefer "Hydra", the clear truth here is that the MCU prefers that as well in nearly all media following The First Avenger. As such, the usage of "HYDRA" in that movie is not much more than a situational stylization that doesn't reflect the rest of the media. While I do think the capitalized spelling should be noted on the page somewhere, the wiki should not default to using it in most contexts in my opinion. It's not a matter of HYDRA being "outdated," it's a matter of it not being the preference of the vast majority of the franchise's media. Rman41 | Blogs - Message Wall - Guestbook 03:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• This one. Criszz (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Option 3

No votes placed

Option 4

• Favoring Option 4 overall. It's obvious that after a point, the capitalization HYDRA just got outdated, so in that sense I'm pro-lowercase Hydra as the wiki-wide norm (aligning with the Option 2 way of thinking). But I agree we should still acknowledge HYDRA in uses when it was capitalized (i.e. at appropriate times). I think this is the best choice. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 03:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Mister Explicit above put it best imo. I agree that this option would be the best option going forwards.    Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   11:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with both of the above points under this option. It definitely seems like the non-capitalized version is becoming more and more common across a wide range of media within the MCU, so I definitely think it should be the main spelling (i.e. I would be fine with Option 2 as well if that ends up receiving more support), but I do think we should at least acknowledge where the fully capitalized version is directly used where possible. Logo8th (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Result

As a Tier 2 vote, the decision is formed by the Staff team using the votes placed above to guide their decision. The Staff team has elected to go with Option 4, although in practice, it will currently be the same as Option 2. This is because, at the current moment, there does not seem to be any pages that would warrant the "HYDRA" spelling, which means the result of this Vote is essentially in practice Option 2; all instances of "HYDRA" will therefore be changed to "Hydra." However, should the spelling of "HYDRA" (with all caps) be used for a specific item or location in the future, the all-caps spelling is to be used for that specific page and that page alone as per Option 4. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   00:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

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

New Proposals

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

' {{{sig}}}

Hello all. There are some changes I have been considering that I am proposing below. Usually we do the seven day discussion period, and then a seven day voting period, and the topic remains open for fourteen days. However, for these proposals, I am electing to just go straight to the voting section as these are pretty clear-cut proposals that do not require a full week to deliberate on whether this is needed or not; the vote suffices. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   01:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Voting eligibility requires site editors to have a certain level of productivity in order to participate in votes affecting the wiki and its community. Users who do not meet the eligibility requirements will have any votes they cast stricken from the record by Staff members. Votes by any users whose accounts are younger than three (3) months or have not been on our wiki for more than three (3) months, have fewer than seventy-five (75) valid edits (as defined below, or who are using sockpuppet accounts will not be counted.

• In order to be eligible to vote, a user account must be at least three (3) months old and must have made at least seventy-five (75) constructive edits. Edits to userpages, talk pages or sandboxes do not count, nor do automated edits or edits that have been reverted or undone.
• A user who is blocked is also not allowed to cast votes for the entire duration of their block.

Ampersands

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

Collapsible Appearances List

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

Proposal has passed. Collapsible Appearances will be implemented. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 02:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC) {{{sig}}}

Iron Man
Appearances
Movies	Iron Man The Incredible Hulk (pre-credits scene) Iron Man 2 Thor (mentioned) The Avengers Iron Man 3 Captain America: The Winter Soldier (picture & mentioned) Avengers: Age of Ultron Ant-Man (mentioned) Captain America: Civil War Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (mentioned; deleted scene) Spider-Man: Homecoming Thor: Ragnarok (mentioned) Avengers: Infinity War Avengers: Endgame Spider-Man: Far From Home (flashback, murals & mentioned) Black Widow (mentioned) Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (mentioned) Eternals (mentioned) Spider-Man: No Way Home (picture & mentioned) Thor: Love and Thunder (mentioned) Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (mentioned) Deadpool & Wolverine (footage & mentioned) Thunderbolts* (photo) Armor Wars (mentioned; unreleased)

I am reproposing the following:

For certain character articles, from the perspective of a reader, it is a detriment to see that a lot of the appearances are fluffed with every possible mention, poster, and photo, many of which are only a brief throwaway line or prop. My suggestion is not to remove them, but implement a collapsible table within the character infobox for the appearances section that prioritizes actual, in-person appearances of the character in a project.

This would especially be helpful as an increasing amount of characters have (or will have) over 10-15 movie appearances, and many older characters such as Iron Man will have lists that will only grow more and more as time goes on. By having the option to condense the more lengthier lists into a series of in-person appearances, I believe this will make the article look cleaner and the list appear more organized. This would also save time for readers on mobile from scrolling down (in the case of many appearances) to make reaching other parts of the infobox and the rest of the article faster and less time-consuming.

I believe this idea can be used for any article over a certain appearance number cap, and it is also possible that this collapsible list can be extended to other types of articles in similar situations, such as some organizations or items. However, I also acknowledge that this function likely cannot extend to characters with lists of TV series appearances, as there are very few characters who make multiple in-person appearances. I want to show that this function is an option that can be considered in whatever context the staff decide is appropriate. The main purpose of this proposal is to integrate a collapsible table for long lists of appearances in the infobox, as I think it is beneficial to both editors and readers.

Examples of these collapsible lists with popular characters can be seen here. Criszz (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am very much in support. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   18:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit: I have added the Iron Man example onto Criszz's post so that people can see what it would look like without having to go to his page. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   00:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Support - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Something I forgot to clarify, mentioned only characters should be exempt. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 15:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Naturally. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I support this proposal.    Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   19:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Likewise. DrewVeenstra (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I want to opposed. Farizhf27 (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Why? - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 00:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I've always been in support of this initative. We had something similar before with aliases prior to the alias overhaul, and it makes sense to extend that approach to other infobox attributes such as appearances for readability. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 00:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I support. - GarrettSMW | Message Wall • Contributions 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I support this. Also for TV Series I made this. I think it can work. - asner •д• | llɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ - suoᴉʇnqᴉɹʇuoɔ 18:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. If we do it for movies, it's only fair it applies for TV series as well. If this goes through, could we rely on you for help with implementing these site-wide? •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah - asner •д• | llɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ - suoᴉʇnqᴉɹʇuoɔ 00:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought that was a given. Anyways, it should apply to all mentions. However, this also means we would remove our ruling about long infoboxes needing expand templates such as Iron Man for comics. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 02:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Because we'd just use the collapsible function on the mentioned comics? •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   02:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I Support - E-Scope | Message Wall • Contribs - 00:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I am very much in support of this as well, as I think it would be very beneficial for readers. Implementation will have to be discussed but I have no objections to the concept. -    Fish Master 41 | Message Wall • Contributions   00:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I am also definitely in support of this proposal. I was a little unclear about how it would actually look on the infoboxes, but seeing the example templates clarified for me exactly how we could expand and contract the mentioned information without the infobox looking strange, so I have no objections to this suggestion. It will greatly aid in readability and will help make it easier for more casual readers to determine what projects characters actually appear in vs. those in which they just receive mentions or other such non-physical appearances. I was wondering whether we might consider doing the same for other types of infoboxes that might get similarly long in the future as the MCU continues, but that's another topic of discussion altogether. Logo8th (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

With Farizhf27 as the only one against this, who did not give a reason and even stated they did not know why they are opposing, and with everyone else who responded doing so in support, this proposal has been approved. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   02:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

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

A separate Media sub-section for the Appearance section

As of now, in-universe and real-life media are usually kept in the Items sections. It might just be a personal thing, but I find it a little off.

I propose to create a separate Media sub-section, where it all could be kept. It would be used for movies like Tomb Buster, shows like The Chris Stearns Show, radio shows, music, video games, etc., as well as for all the real-life media that gets mentioned or featured (Star Wars, Alien, all that). - King Nasara (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's really that necessary, all in-universe media are categorized as items and all our appearance subsections are based on the general base categories (Locations, Events, Characters, Concepts, Items, Vehicles, etc.). -    Fish Master 41 | Message Wall • Contributions   19:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that, but it just doesn't feel right into me. If it's a book or a like a movie on a physical unit, I can understand, but if it's a TV show or a radio show, then it just looks a little awkward. Especially if it's a real life franchise like Star Wars. Doesn't feel right to classify it as an item. - King Nasara (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

At the end of the day, they are still items. So personally I am fine with them being under items. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 20:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I personally disagree, mostly. Even if they are real world elements, this is still proof they exist in-universe, and are therefore still in-universe media even if they are not entirely fictional. But this did make me think it is a little weird that Deadpool could reference out-of-universe elements and they would end up being included with the rest of the Appearances section. So I'm going to piggyback on your idea and say that I think a "Real-World Elements" section could be useful. It would list any real world elements that do not exist in the MCU, like Kevin Fiege. This would be especially helpful for Guidebooks and Artbooks where it is filled with mentions of movies, inspirations, etc. Sorry that I went on a tangent there. -DavisRanger (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think I originally misunderstood what the proposal was specifically for, so I will amend my stance. I think a Media subsection would make sense, and I think it has as much ground to have its own subsection as Vehicles, and I think elements of media, like fictional characters, would also make sense to go under this subsection. (as long as they don't fit under a better section like Cast)-DavisRanger (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

So I think this proposal might have started to be implemented but I just wanted to put that before this dissuasion was archived, I made a sandbox page (User:DavisRanger/Sandbox/Media Sub-Section) to see how it would look implemented my way. With purely fictional elements as a sub-bullet points. To be clear anything that is real in-universe, or is fictional media in-universe that are peaks into another universe (like the MCU in the Real World Universe) would stay where they are. I think I made it clear what I mean on that page. -DavisRanger (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we're looking to see how implementation would look like, and I gave the green light to Nasara. If you'd like to message Nasara on their wall to share any findings, have at it. For the record, I am of the mind that real-world media should also be included in the "Media" category, as indicated in my stance. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 18:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see the merit for in-universe movies or shows but I think mentions (like when Star Wars is mentioned) should still be in its usual Mentioned spot. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 14:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

After some thought, I think I'm okay with this proposal, even with Star Wars and such being shifted up to the proposed "Media" section as a mention. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 17:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I disagree with this proposal, but I'm on the fence. I definitely see the benefits, but I think it makes more sense to leave it as is. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️‍⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 17:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The idea behind this proposal does make sense to me, and this wouldn't be the first time we've added a new subsection to appearances, as I believe we did that for concepts too a while back, which used to just be listed under items. It does seem a little weird to me to list something intangible like an in-universe show or film in the section we use for physical items, but they don't really fit as concepts either, so a separate subsection could work. Therefore, I'd say that I support this proposal. Logo8th (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I like the idea of this proposal and I think it makes enough logical sense that it should be implemented.  | Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Universe Designations Discussion

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

When applicable, official universe designations will be preferred over the ones with words. Only MCU sources will be considered valid for names, and we every universe will be referred to as "Earth-[Number]" regardless of how it is referred to in the project. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️‍⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 17:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC) {{{sig}}}

Last night, there was a big debate on the Wiki's Discord server regarding the way the MCU Wiki currently handles the multiverse. Multiple people advocated for the use of Temporary Reality Numbers akin to Marvel Database or Arrowverse, but as staff we want to be very clear this is not something that will be happening here. However, we do hear the discontent among certain users with the current handling, so I wanted to propose two options for the wiki to decide on:

1. Carry on as is, nothing changes
2. We do what DCU Wiki does, where officially numbered universes (Earth-838, Earth-828, Earth-10005, Xandar-625, etc.), use the official number. This would mean character pages such as Christine Palmer/Earth-838 would be renamed to "Christine Palmer/Earth-838", for example. For universes that are not officially numbered, (most non-canon universes, Crucified Wolverine Universe, etc.), we carry on as usual

My question is: what are everyone's thoughts on these two options, since TRNs are a non-starter? I personally prefer the first option, but we want to know everyone's input on this. For those voting for option 2, there's two follow-up questions to answer:

1. Certain universes appear in MCU media but are numbered by non-MCU sources, such as the Unofficial Appendix (like most universes from What If...? Season 1) and in other media (like the Lethal Protector Venom Universe). For those universes, should we use the number that comes from non-MCU sources?
2. Some numbered universes are not named Earth-[Number]. The universe in What If... Nebula Joined the Nova Corps? is officially referred to as Xandar-625 in What If... The Watcher Disappeared?. All of the universes that are officially numbered in What If...? – An Immersive Story are referred to as, for example, Timeline 657, without even a hyphen. In these cases, do we favor using what they are officially called and have pages such as Nebula/Xandar-625 and Hela/Timeline 657, or change them all to Earth-[Number] for consistency, such as Nebula/Earth-625 and Hela/Earth-657?

Everyone's thoughts on these questions would be very appreciated.

Personally, I'm in favor of option 1. If we did go with option two, I'm very split on using non-MCU designations, so I'm going to hold off on having input on that. Regarding the second question, I think the best way to go is consistency with everything being Earth-[Number]. There is precedent for the wiki preferring internal consistency over officiality. That's just my vote though. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️‍⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 22:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I vote for Option 2. As someone who participated in the DCU Wiki vote and helped spearhead the decision for them to use official numbering instead of the user-generated Citadel naming like we do here, I think this Wiki would benefit quite well from following that model. So yes, Christine Palmer/Earth-838 instead of Christine Palmer/Earth-838 and the Illuminati Assembled Universe page being renamed to Earth-838. However, regarding the second bit, I am very iffy on using universe numbers from the Marvel Appendix, even if they're not TRNs. To me that isn't ideal, but those are just my thoughts. And finally, for the numbered universes, I think we should just use what's been given officially, so Timeline 657 (without the hyphen) and Xandar-625. I am against renaming them all to "Earth-" for consistency; I don't think us having voted to retain naming consistency for episode titles of a show applies to universe designations. I don't think Xandar-625 should be renamed as Earth-625; Earth isn't even involved in that. I think it's best to just use the official names as given, if that's the route people vote for, rather than trying to modify them to fit into a "Earth-[number]" naming scheme. I am curious to know the thoughts of other community members. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 22:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I vote option 2. I wish we were allowed to even have a conversation about TRNs, as the new administration has been open to talking things out instead of being over controlling, but the best of what's given is 2. I am also for changing things to "Earth-" for consistency. I also am not against using numbers from non-MCU sources. Luke2Max (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

TRNs work for Marvel Database. They would not work for what we do here, so it wouldn't be implemented. Having the community decide things is great, but there are times where Staff has to put what's best for the site over what a vocal user may want. TRNs work for a Wiki like MD where you're covering universes from various different types of medias, some with overlapping universe designations, but more importantly, a website where the Appendix is followed. The MCU Wiki does not follow the Appendix the way MD does. Not to mention, most MCU Wiki users are not on MD and the TRN system would be very confusing. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 22:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see Option 2 realized, even if only for official numbers. At least in cases where they are available and commonly known, I see no reason not to use them. Malachi108 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I vote for Option 2. I feel like it will make it easier to identify alternate universes with designations (like Earth-838 for example.) As for the second question, I feel like we shouldn't try to make all official designations "Earth-". If a universe is designated a certain way, we should have it named as such. TheCAB14 (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I have a couple of thoughts that make me conflicted. For 1. I do like the consistency with all the universe pages being descriptive names, and there could be value at least keeping it in the lede as well as making them for universes that start with a numbered name. And 2. these numbered names I agree should be consistent. The Xandar in Xandar-625 was referring to a planet in that universe and than the 625 is referring to the universe. There is still an Earth in that universe presumably and presumably if that Earth was featured it would be Earth-625. And if only Xandar was featured in a 616 project it could be called Xandar-616. So I think that, arguably, the most consistent would be going with Timeline 616, 625, etc. as Timeine refers to a universe instead of just a prominent planet in that universe, but I know that could be a controversial stance. And 3. I think if we were to go this way we should use non-MCU sources, as long as they don't contradict the MCU, as they are consistent with the MCU most of the time. I understand if the Appendix would be except from this though.-DavisRanger (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

After a couple of days of thinking it over, I ultimately vote for option 2. This wiki should strive for accurately over consistency, although we should standardize the names. I would like to keep the former sentence names in some capacity beyond a Trivia note, being used alongside the number whenever it would not clutter the page (like in Alternate Versions). But since these names have never been used officially using it at a similar weight as an official name could be seen as sort of untrustful. -DavisRanger (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

If this isn't out of place to say, based on seeing how this dissuasion is going, I think that the best solution in terms of rollout is to do it step by step and then have a new discussion about expanding the scope after each rollout. So. This dissuasion -> MCU designations rollout -> Non-MCU designations dissuasion -> non-MCU designations rollout -> Appendix dissuasion -> appendix designations. And if at any point in these steps a proposal for expanding the scope of this rollout is declined, the process stops. I think this would be a good idea due to how unfocused these discussions can be if you discuss all of them at once and this allows us to see how each level is implemented and what problems come about (like the difference of universe names as is mentioned elsewhere in this discussion) before we move on to the next level and this can inform the discussion.-DavisRanger (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

For the record I assume you mean discussion, not dissuasion. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 17:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Of course. Why are those words so similar lol. -DavisRanger (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I vote option 2 - E-Scope | Message Wall • Contribs - 01:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

And what are your thoughts on the follow-up questions Jessica brought up for those who want Option 2? • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 01:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The only thing that really worries me about using non-MCU designations are cases like Logan. Where we have it all in Earth-10005 like Deadpool & Wolverine implied, but thats not what the appendix does. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 13:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty good reason not to abide by the Appendix. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 13:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

After some thinking. I believe it is a safer option for us not to go with non-MCU designations. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 18:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the DCU Wiki-esque option (Option 2). That said, here are at least my answers on the follow up questions for Option 2. To answer the first question, I think they should be used as long as they do not conflict with something already established (whether it be official numbering, from the Appendix, or otherwise). As for the second question, I know with the Appendix, "Xandar-625" is considered to it "Earth-MCU-625" but that's why I think we should just use Earth-625 as it seems at least clear to me and others that the "Xandar-625" was moreso referring to the planet and then universe the planet was in. I would like it to be as consistent as possible. That said, if Option 2 does go through and we choose to keep it as Xandar-625, while I may not be a fan of it, I can respect that decision at the end of the day. I understand the What If...? video game does use "Timeline" for the universe designation and while I'd prefer to use Earth across the board, I think these specific universes can be considered exceptions to the rule of "Earth-XYZ" under Option 2 especially as it is the ONLY piece of media (to my recollection) that has outright used Timeline in place of "Earth" or some other denoting moniker.  | Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   14:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I am in favor of Option 2 but I don't think we should use non-Marvel Cinematic Universe sources. As for the first question, I am of the opinion that we should only uses universe designations that appear in the MCU or an MCU-related source. As for the second question, I personally am fine with using Timeline-[Number] or Xandar-[Number], as those seem just as official to me as Earth-[Number]. As a final note, I do think that the descriptive name should remain as a redirect to the official number. -    Fish Master 41 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I also don't have the strongest opinion on "Earth", but I guess I would go with "Timeline-XYZ". Additionally, I don't feel that redirects for the old names would be necessary. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 22:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not think the user-generated descriptive names should remain as a redirect. What purpose would it serve? They would be rendered obsolete. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 22:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Votes

Alright, so it's pretty clear that the initial question, whether to change the way we handle designations at all, is unanimously in favor of Option 2, using the DCU Wiki's method. However, there is a degree of disagreement about the follow-up questions to this option, so these two will be put up to a vote with voting eligibility rules. The first question is whether to use Earth numbers that are designated from non-MCU sources, such as the Unofficial Appendix. The second question is whether to favor consistency in calling everything Earth-[Number], calling everything Timeline [Number], or to always use what it is called, such as referring to the universe in What If... Nebula Joined the Nova Corps? as Xandar-625. These proposals will be included in a vote here, everyone is encouraged to please vote on both questions. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️‍⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 04:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Voting eligibility requires site editors to have a certain level of productivity in order to participate in votes affecting the wiki and its community. Users who do not meet the eligibility requirements will have any votes they cast stricken from the record by Staff members. Votes by any users whose accounts are younger than three (3) months or have not been on our wiki for more than three (3) months, have fewer than seventy-five (75) valid edits (as defined below, or who are using sockpuppet accounts will not be counted.

• In order to be eligible to vote, a user account must be at least three (3) months old and must have made at least seventy-five (75) constructive edits. Edits to userpages, talk pages or sandboxes do not count, nor do automated edits or edits that have been reverted or undone.
• A user who is blocked is also not allowed to cast votes for the entire duration of their block.

Using Non-MCU Sources for Designations

Support

• I see no harm when there's nothing else to use. It can definitely be explained on the page where the numbers come from, but I think it's better than nothing when one exists.Luke2Max (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • You are not eligible to vote, and therefore your vote has been disqualified. You require 75 constructive edits to qualify; your overall edit count at the moment of this comment is 64, and at the time you placed your vote it was 57. Of your current total edit count of 64, only 27 of them are edits that would be eligible for the 75 qualitative vote criteria, as the other edits were edits to your User page, making edits that you then reverted (therefore disqualifying them), signing up for WikiProjects, and leaving discussion comments. Even if the latter two edits were counted, your edit count would be in the low 30s. Please ensure that you read the Eligibility section posted under every "Vote" subheading. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 12:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• The positives of using designations from any and all official sources, including the Appendix, far out way the negatives in my opinion. My support of this option is furthered by the fact that the pre-existing designation Earth-10005 was used by MS in Deadpool & Wolverine. - DemKnux (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Originally, Earth-10005 was the original Handbook designation, and I believe it should be considered semi-official from the point when those numbers and the appendix addresses were officially printed.
  Furthermore, Marvel is more consistent than DC in its reality designations, so I agree. - Sasuke431 (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• I have conflicting feelings, but ultimately I support this option. Part of me feels a compromise of using a chosen name with the non-MCU name in the lede in a format like "known as Earth-XXX in the wider Multiverse." But of teh two provided options I can choose between I choose this one. This is due to these still being the most official names available, when there is no MCU name, and I feel the opposers are over estimating the amount of edge cases, and these messy edge cases I don't think will be hard to solve as long as we don't rush to do them all at once. -DavisRanger (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• With a full disclosure that I am biased as $%&*@ on this. Malachi108 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• I fully support using non-MCU sources for designations, as I believe otherwise this would only allow us a small handful of reality designations (828, 838, 625, 616, among others) The only issues I could see arising from this is when a reality has multiple official names from multiple official sources (the main timeline being 616 within the MCU products, while being 199999 in other Marvel products) or when a given reality designation is already in use (again, such as 616 being in use for around 4-5 different realities across all of Marvel), but these are small in comparison to the benefits. - Edward Zachary Sunrose (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

• I'm here. I think especially with the Appendix, things can get really messy really fast and it's not worth including, especially since they're not MCU sources. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️‍⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 04:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Vehemently against using the Appendix, and especially more so upon learning about their eligibility and application request criteria. The MCU Wiki does not and will not work well by adopting the Appendix in my opinion. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 05:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Using the appendix would be a mistake I believe. Nothing wrong with the appendix, but Marvel Studios has already proven that they do not follow such a thing with "Earth-616" and also choosing Earth-617 when one already exists. The appendix also runs through Marvel Editorial not Marvel Studios, so I don't believe there is a lot of connection internally to be honest. Overall, it's safer if we do not bind ourselves to the appendix. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 12:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Though I'm all for the appendix designations, the three above me have made good points on not using them. - Caden | Message Wall • Contributions 13:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• I have a similar sentiment to Caden. I see both sides and theres benefits I can see from both options. However, I can’t disregard some points made above so my vote lands here.  | Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   13:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• This is where I fall as well. Using the Appendix numbers or any other non-MCU sources could run the risk of boxing us in actual MCU sources provide us with information on these universes that runs contrary to the information from those sources. If we want to future-proof our articles here, not using such unofficial information should be the best policy. Logo8th (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• I'm sticking my vote here, I strongly feel we should stick to Marvel Cinematic Universe sources only, as I feel this could lead to a lot of cases of Citogenesis, which is something I am strongly against. I also agree with Logo8th's position that we run the risk of contradicting future MCU decisions. -    Fish Master 41 | Message Wall • Contributions   04:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Naming Scheme

"Earth-[Number]" Every Time

• This is what Marvel's universe naming system is known to be. It is helpful for SEO, consistency with most Marvel projects, and internal consistency for the wiki. The other options to me overcomplicate things, especially with the only MCU precedent for "Timeline [Number]" being a VR tie-in game to What If...? that nobody played. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️‍⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 04:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• I think for consistency's sake it's best to have this option. Most of the fan base is going to be expecting this anyways. - Luke2Max (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • (Post-Archive Admin Addendum): You were not eligible to participate in voting. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 17:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
• Basically just agree with what's been said above, though I will add going with this option will give us some nice parity with Marvel Database. - DemKnux (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Despite being one of the ones who brought up using Timeline, I ultimately think using Earth for all universes makes the most sense for consistency since it is the most consistency used name by the MCU and the wider Marvel multiverse. -DavisRanger (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• With a caveat that the most accurate option would be "reality-[Number]", followed by "Universe-[Number]", and that "Earth-[Number]" is understood to be only a shorthand for brevity, standing for "Earth of reality-[Number]". Malachi108 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• The other two options seem silly. - Caden | Message Wall • Contributions 13:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with keeping the naming scheme consistent by labeling every officially designated universe as Earth-Number. It's the precedent that was set in the MCU during the Multiverse era with Multiverse of Madness, Deadpool and Wolverine and First Steps, in addition to simply being how Marvel does things in other areas as well. - Edward Zachary Sunrose (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• Given that this seems to be the naming scheme utilized by a majority of the more prominent projects in the MCU, as well as all of the reasons stated above mine, this option is where my vote falls. Logo8th (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• This is the easiest and simplest option and and one that I feel creates the most consistency in our pages making it easier for casual readers to navigate. -    Fish Master 41 | Message Wall • Contributions   04:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
• This is where I stand on this issue. - Bryschec (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

"Timeline [Number]" Every Time

• I ultimately fall under this one, but don't oppose "Earth". - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 12:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Always Using How it's Described (Xandar-625, Earth-838, and Timeline 657)

• I place my vote here. Rather than us forcing everything to an "Earth" prefix for the Wiki's sake, I think the best course of action is just to use what's officially given to us. • MJLogan95 • Message Wall • Contributions 05:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Personally, I am a fan of this as it does keep consistent with what we are given. I understand SEO being better with Earth but I think with something like the What If…? video game (among other things), it is better to represent what is given to us. By that I mean it can also cause less confusion for those users who are very MCU-focused and only care about what is shown directly. Meaning likely those types of people would also not like the conversion of Timeline/Xandar into Earth-XYZ.  | Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   13:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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