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

Background to be changed per new release, and currently updated for the release of Deadpool & Wolverine {{{sig}}}

Similar to the MarvelStudios subreddit, it might be a good idea to shift the wiki background for each new media release. or alternatively we could hold a vote for a new one, though I think the one we have now is pretty good Evalprime (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That is definitely an idea that's been suggested multiple times that we are looking into implementing. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   02:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We used to do an update for every release until Helstrom, which is when it stopped for being too much of a hassle to change all the time. I do not think that would be a problem anymore, so I am open to that, or a permanent one, which I know has already been an idea that has been thrown around as a user has been thinking of ideas to do and eventually create. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 02:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Echoing Raff's point, if someone is willing to create new backgrounds for each release, they'd be more than welcome. I also think it's worth having a backup in case a new release doesn't get a background, and I think the Disney+ menu screen we currently use is good for that. -Jessica3801 (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I created backgrounds for another project so I would be willing to make them for this one :) the way I did it was by taking the image URL of the Disney+ for the show or movie, which happened to have the rough dimensions I wanted, but it wouldn't be difficult to make. the only issue is making sure that the contrast between the image and the colors used on dark/light mode is not too extreme but not too muted Evalprime (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is just a personal preference, but I think it would be cooler if it's custom. Even if you do pull that image and edit it to look different. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 03:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Doing a triple reply here. I'm willing to create new backgrounds for each release if need be. Equally so, I volunteered to create the wiki's new default background (for times between media) and was told I could. If you'd be willing Evalprime, we could definitely collaborate for both media-specific and the default backgrounds. Never hurts to have multiple heads pooling together to come up with ideas. I do agree with Raff btw in terms of custom being cooler.    Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   03:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur that custom backgrounds are cooler. If members of the community would like to create these backgrounds and banners for us, by all means! •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   05:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I support the idea that with each new project release, a new background is needed. SeichanGrey (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what was said above, the only thing I would add is there would need to be a discussion of how long these backgrounds would be up for when two projects are releasing at the same time such as when Spider-Man: No Way Home released in the middle of Hawkeye Season One or when The Marvels released in the middle of Loki Season Two. - Fish Master 41 (Message Wall) 17:04, June 29, 2024 (PST)

There should also probably be a default background that the wiki uses when there is no project. Like between Echo and Deadpool & Wolverine. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 00:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal approved with "Notable Users" amendment {{{sig}}}

• (Proposal from pre-Treehouse integration)

With the past few years having more and more alternate universes, the old way of marking items as in "Active<br>Destroyed (alternate versions)" does not work anymore because there are now many different versions of many items with different statuses (see the preview screen here for more clarification). To counter this, I think that a template should be added for alternate versions in between what would be above appearances. The template would highlight the media the item appears in (if there is a universe page available then it would go there instead). It would also highlight its status and who used it (therefore getting rid of the very convoluted collapsed list of alternate characters in the infobox). This would allow the infobox to only display Earth-616 users and status while keeping the alternate universe infobox info in this template.

A look at the infobox would be:

Then the actual template can be found here.

So this would clean up the pages very well and remove the misinformation regarding statuses. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 03:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Allthough I've made suggestions to make it a template in the past, I agree now that just making a table is the simplicity we need. DavisRanger (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, when I first began reading that proposal, I was apprehensive of losing certain names from the users list. However, there are lot of "duplicate" names (Variants) that get added. I like your table suggestion. A table instead of a template also makes it easier (at least in my perspective) to edit when a new episode or movie comes out. I am in favor of this proposal. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   05:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to perhaps suggest a slight tweak: original timeline users who use alternate timeline items can keep their names in the Infobox under users? So instead of "Users" section being tied to "People who used the Main Universe version of this item" it becomes more of a "Main universe people who used this item?" This allows Steve Rogers to be listed as a user for Mjølnir, Tony Stark for the Stones, etc. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

My thinking was that since it is an item page, it would follow item's prime universe rather than the characters. But your suggestion is fine as well. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 22:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I just foresee a lot of high traffic and hidden text warnings. I wonder if there's a way we can denote some Alternate Item users in the infobox but also make it clear this isn't a full list. A suggestion that comes to mind is having "Notable Users" instead of "Users" for certain items. That way certain users of AU items get added, and then we still have the table for the full list. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   22:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That works. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 16:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Before I fully form an opinion on this one, where would histories of alternate universe versions go? Still under "History" or under the proposed "Alternate Versions" heading? -Jessica3801 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

We already have a section for "Alternate Universe Versions" on Item pages; the history would remain there. It's just a table for Owners/Users as a means to trim down the infobox without suffering loss of content. The heading above the title should be amended to "Alternate Universe Version Users" or something. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Although it makes sense to follow only the main universe item users, I agree that main universe characters that have used alternate versions of the item should also be in the infobox. It would be weird to not have Steve Rogers under users for Mjølnir in the infobox. I think the table looks nice and I am in favor of it, especially because it solves the "Status" problem of not knowing which item the status is refering to. - Fish Master 41 (Message Wall) 17:25, June 29, 2024 (PST)

History would be unaffected. This is just to display the users and owners better. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 12:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Then yeah, full agreement from me. -Jessica3801 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Most Treehouse proposals will not be stored in subpages. However, future key proposals (determined by Staff) will be given sub-pages by Staff and added to the Forum:Index so that they can be easily located and referenced. {{{sig}}}

This is something that Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha do. I'm not worried about generating tons of proposals here to warrant that, but it would be helpful to be able to reference specific proposals easily than searching through the archives, which is currently very difficult unless you know when a proposal was roughly made. in addition, it would lower the risk of edit conflicts and allow the history of each proposal to be retained after each archive. the proposals would be viewable in an index using a DPL table, which could also show the last editor and the last date a proposal was either edited or archived. this would not be hard to develop. alternatively, we could use a namespace and top-level pages, but that requires asking Fandom to create a namespace Evalprime (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is this different than archiving proposals? - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 03:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

no, it would just a different way of storing proposals. for example, instead of this proposal (and others) being located at Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki talk:Treehouse#Storing Treehouse proposals in subpages, it would be its own page at Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki talk:Treehouse/Storing Treehouse proposals in subpages. every proposal would be a subpage indefinitely, but the archiving process would still go on, just not through an archive page but on the subpage itself Evalprime (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that would make things a bit messy. I'd rather have it on a single page that's easy to check in on rather than a series of subpages. -Jessica3801 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

would you be in favor of having an index as I mentioned that could convey more information than this page does now at the expense of losing the content on this page? Evalprime (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you be visually able to kind of give an example of what you mean by this (like a link to a wiki that does it if possible)?    Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   04:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't really test this out on a personal wiki because I don't have access to DPL. however, I linked Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha above as wikis that use it. Wookieepedia happens to use DPLforum, which is an extension that introduces a namespace for forums (that namespace has the ID of 110), so this is completely possible and effectively a proposal to use DPLforum, though I'm not a fan of that extension and I prefer DPL Evalprime (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That Wookieepedia Forum Index looks cool, but I agree with Jessica that making every proposal its own subpage seems excessive. If there's a way we can keep proposals here on the Treehouse as-is but still have a Forum index for users to search up specific proposals, then I would be glad to add that feature in. If that's possible, let us know. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   05:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You can obtain the contents of an article with DPL using Dplchapter, essentially allowing you to create an index with the proposal itself, but you can't get who wrote a proposal last or when it was last edited. The best solution might be to use the Forum namespace and if there are concerns with hiding the contents of proposals we can transclude each proposal. Evalprime (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I'm familiar with DPL whatsoever. However, Fandom does tell us "Because of its great power, DPL increases server load and can result in significantly slower page loads for wikis that use it." Which automatically leans us against not doing that for every proposal. The concept of having a Forum:Index for a handful of specific/key proposals seems interesting, especially if the small amount does not incur the significantly slow page loads, but there are hurdles with implementing it. Not our area of expertise, so to speak. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   08:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

As an SRE for Miraheze (and someone who knows the maintainer of DPL3 personally), I can tell you that DPL in this case would not increase server load more than the wikis that use it are already taking up. It would take a very, very large query to have a measurable impact on server performance. As an example, I'm aware of one wiki that used a very expensive DPL query that worked on Fandom, but on their own servers it caused Special:RecentChanges to refuse to load. In this case, DPL is being used to display pages from a category, which does not require a lot of database resources or expensive in-memory string parsing. I can work on this myself as long as I get the go ahead. If there are any technical restrictions you're concerned about, I can try to clarify them as much as possible :) Evalprime (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, the idea of having certain policies and proposals easily accessible through a Forum:Index is interesting. It may not be something we'd implement for everything, but perhaps future versions of the Treehouse (once this is archived and we start anew) could theoretically receive this treatment. If you can create this using your Sandbox or User page with no additional User rights bestowed, you're more than welcome to give it a try and we can potentially test for ourselves the viability of implementing a version of this. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   11:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I made a forum at User:Evalprime/forum Evalprime (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not in favor of this, I think it would be to messy. Although, don't see the problem with having a manual index stored under something like Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki:Community Portal/Archival Index, with it simply being an index of archived proposals and under which archive they're located. The index would be irrelevant for anything currently on this page as the auto generated Table of Contents at the top of the page already serves this purpose. I can draft a draft of the index if needed. - Fish Master 41 (Message Wall) 17:57, June 29, 2024 (PST)

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

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

Topic moved to Conjecture Policy talk page {{{sig}}}

I was hoping for a chance to revise several points of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki:Conjecture Policy. The current wording is pretty decent on the surface, but has certain loopholes that enabled some people to make absolutely wild conjectures absolutely not suppored by any source. There are certain specific cases which concern me in particular:

• World Security Council members: Chao Yen, Jakuna Singh, Douglas Rockwell, Pamela Hawley. None of the four are given the first name in the credits or any other official material. The Conjecture Policy allowed them to be matched to minor comic characters with matching last names from unrelated storylines, even when none of those characters occupy the same position or play in any way a similar role in the story. The issue here of course is that Marvel Comics has tens of thousands named characters, and almost any common name - be it first or last - can be matched to someone, if you squint hard enough.
• The same applies to Victoria Snow and Janice Lincoln. Both were only identified by their first names in the movie, with nothing linking them to the comic book characters at all. I know that the name of Victoria Snow later appeared in What If?, but that was almost certainly the result of the show's creators using the wiki or its derivatives for research. Nothing whatsoever in Far From Home suggests that Claire Rushbrook is meant to be playing the MCU version of the Beetle, and all of the online sources claiming so can be verified by date stampts to have taken the wiki's Conjecture as a fact.
• Kylos/Kylosians - both of these names have no sources either in the MCU or in the Marvel Comics. The name "Kylos" comes from a video game non-canon to either the comics or the films, but it cannot be used as a Conjecture either because a different game names Drax as Katathian from Katath instead.

As such, I believe that the following clauses to the Conjecture Policy should be added:

1. This situation particularly includes the full names of characters adapted from Marvel Comics whose full name is not totally revealed, as a character's full name is considered stable across all alternate realities unless otherwise explicitly stated. To equate an on-screen character with their comic counterpart, they must have the similar position, role in the storyline, and relationship to the principal character, beyond all reasonable doubt.
2. Characters whose name is revealed in non-canon media such as novelizations or video games are allowed to have said name added under the conjecture policy, as long as that name is consistent across all adaptations or alternate realities.

I'm curious as to what the community thinks about this when opinions are actually allowed be voiced and discussed. HBK123 (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should take a very conservative approach to including any kind of conjecture. if an article name cannot be adequately defended with a citation from a source establishing some kind of association between the character and a comics version, it should not be the name. no comics material should be included whatsoever, even to support a name in article text, and that includes non-canon media. including information at the expense of it potentially conflicting with the internal information within the MCU is not a service to the reader. if a concept needs to be detailed, such as Drax's race, clarification should attempted to be made through some sort of authoritative source such as James Gunn or an alternative name should be used such as "Drax's race" Evalprime (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We are working on reviewing ALL policies on site. Rest assured we will also evaluate the Conjecture policy. We're still working on establishing a set practice on how to handle policy review, including community input. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please post your proposed changes here: Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki talk:Conjecture Policy. This will make it easier for us to reference it when working on amendments. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   22:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

To be implemented when Canon Policy is reworked {{{sig}}}

Since a ton of articles whose subject comes from an a Marvel adaption outside of the MCU franchise (e.g. Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, Deadpool, etc.) already have some sort of invisible text telling editors to not add information not presented in the MCU, I'd suggest creating a maintenance template that conveys this information to both readers and editors. An example of what I would do can be found on my user page. - DemKnux (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a good template but if I were to change the wording, it's actually worded towards editors when it probably should be towards readers Evalprime (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think it may be confusing to newcomers when the Deadpool page does not talk about the events of the first two Fox films, or other characters like him. I also like the template, but like Evalprime, I think it would be better to explain it to the readers rather than to the editors, that are likely more familiar with the Wiki's rules. Here is my wording proposition:

"The subject of this article appears in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but originates from another Marvel Comics adaptation. As such, this article exclusively covers Marvel Studios appearances." (Only the second sentence was changed, and I'm open to other wording options that keeps the same meaning). - Incursion Lee 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I really like the idea. It can probably be worked in when we make changes to the canon policy. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 20:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of this idea as well! I will keep it mind when we undergo reviewing templates. So now we have this, and the aforementioned color scheme proposal. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'm mixed. I understand wanting to communicate that, but the goal of maintenance templates is to communicate what updates need to be done on pages. This template would never leave the page. -Jessica3801 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

While I understand where you're coming from you could say the same thing about the {{AltUniverse}} template. - DemKnux (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the {{Imageless}} template is most likely going to remain forever on a bunch of pages related to stuff mentioned or alluded to in previous Marvel Television TV shows. Those "Imageless" ones would far outnumber any pages that have a template for characters in the MCU who came from non-MCU universes. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Yeah, I do think that could be helpful. -Jessica3801 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Great! Raff said earlier that we could work it in when we get to reviewing and overhauling Canon Policy, so we'll incorporate this proposal then accordingly. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   18:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal denied {{{sig}}}

This is a major change that would affect hundreds of pages, and understandably it faces a slim chance of being carried out. However, I did want to bring it up regardless as an idea I think should be implemented. the main reason for this is respecting proper nouns. For example, Peter Parker's Apartment seems to be a proper noun, but it is not because it's an unofficial name that has been assigned to Peter Parker's apartment. In that sentence, I didn't capitalize "apartment" because it's not a proper noun. In written contexts, his apartment would be written as "Peter Parker's apartment", so it seems strange to capitalize "apartment" on-wiki. adding something in the MoS to refer to articles such as that in sentence case is a possible solution, but then it adds complexity with piped links. This idea shouldn't be rejected as very hard to implement because bots can automate the moving process. The naming policy says that title case is used to avoid confusion, but I don't see where there would be confusion. in the example provided, "Clearance level" would be correct in sentence case because it's not a proper noun. This would also apply to parenthesis Evalprime (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I for one am not very fond of this proposal to be honest. I don't really think it looks that good and even then, it is a title so they should be capitalized like a book or chapter of a book would. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 20:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

While the Naming Policy will be amended, since I believe things like "Gamma Radiation" should be written as "gamma radiation", I can't say I'm a big fan of renaming page names to have lowercase. "Peter Parker's Apartment" reads better as a page name than "Peter Parker's apartment". For headings, "Second Apartment" I think looks better than "Second apartment". It's not the implementation, it's the overall look of it. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree here. We should not be using sentence case for titles and headings. -Jessica3801 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal denied {{{sig}}}

Another large proposal that doesn't stand much of a chance. The general basis for this is that most of the time characters aren't referred to by their codenames. The exception I might suggest here is using codenames if the subject of an article is known by that codename more than their actual name. Doctor Strange might qualify under that exception because Peter Parker refers to him as Doctor Strange when he's talking to May. This would resolve some issues like Hulk, where characters who have moved on from serving their title in some way like Steve Rogers are given names. Rogers actually brings up an inconsistency where there's an exception that needs to be made. but for Iron Man, Tony Stark appears to be referenced more as himself rather than Iron Man, like the "Stark Raving Hazelnuts" flavor of ice cream. Some people such as Whiplash are better known by their real name. A good example is Vulture. a reader unaware of the comics might go to Adrian Toomes first, not Vulture. The only issue here is using piped links for referring to these characters, and this isn't a decision that can just be made in even a week, but I do think it needs to be done Evalprime (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've always liked the codenames and it is something we have done forever. So I am not really in favor of this either. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 20:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We will be retaining codenames for pagenames. Civilian names can be used for infoboxes, but the page names themselves will continue to be codenames. Sorry. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Current DISPLAYTITLE format will be retained {{{sig}}}

On articles such as Moon Knight (TV series), the parenthesis is absent from the visible title. This should be discouraged because it obscures where the title is and requires you to use the URL. DISPLAYTITLE should only be used for technical restrictions. This is also the case on the articles for Iron Man's armor like Iron Man Armor: Mark III, where I actually needed to type that out rather than copy and pasting. This suggests that the title this article has isn't good, which suggests to me like a move request should be opened Evalprime (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Not to knock on everything, but I am not really the biggest fan of this either. Utilizing displaytitles makes the overall product of the pages look neater. Having to look to the url is not really a big problem in my opinion since it is right above the top of the page anyways. No prolems have arose from this. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 20:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think DISPLAYTITLE should be retained. It makes everything look neater. The show is called "Moon Knight" so having the display list "Moon Knight" as opposed to Wikipedia's "Moon Knight (TV series)" looks neater. I don't think DISPLAYTITLE should be discouraged, but the floor is open for others to weigh in. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the Fandom app it's impossible to see where an article is actually located Evalprime (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That is correct. But there are a lot of things that Fandom Mobile causes problems for which have to be looked over. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 22:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I've always been in favor of not having DISPLAYTITLE. It allows users easier access to our page titles. If people disagree though, we can keep it. -Jessica3801 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE allows us to use italics on page displays when appropriate, such as when it's a television episode, movie title, or just items like ships or in-universe movies. Even the "Iron Man/Gallery" becoming "Iron Man | Gallery" allows for neater display. Perhaps a case-by-case basis can be applied for pages, but on the whole I'm in favor of retaining DISPLAYTITLE. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   23:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with Logan, I am very much in favor of keeping DISPLAYTITLE. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 02:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I should have clarified, I have no problem with DISPLAYTITLE for italicizing works. The problem comes with using it to come up with different names that aren't the URL. Evalprime (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Raff and Logan. Moon Knight is not called Moon Knight (TV series), it is called Moon Knight, so that's what the title should be. - GarrettPlayzRBLX - Message Wall • Contributions 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the point. It's unfortunate that Marvel chose a name for a show that happens to be the same as the character it's based on, but titles are supposed to indicate what an article is about, not dictate what an article should be called. Two articles can't have the same name, and that doesn't have anything to do with saying Moon Knight (TV series) in conversation. In other words, we're not writing a dictionary where every article title needs to match the exact name (which is the problem on United States of America), we're writing an encyclopedia with indexes of page topics. Evalprime (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

While I'm amenable to the idea of potentially keeping "TV series" in the title, but using DISPLAYTITLE for the italics, there are many pages where we would prefer to not have the page URL displayed as the page name. Not all wikis are the same; many wikis choose to display page names differently than their URL, which is why the template of DISPLAYTITLE exists, and why we choose to exercise that option. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   11:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Small correction, it's a magic word not a template, but I get your point. This is what I've been trying to say actually, I have no problem with it being used for italics (and I think it absolutely needs to be, I would rather have this proposal be rejected but keep italics than the other way around). However, if a title isn't ideal, I think the page should be moved to that title. For Iron Man's armor, I think a better title could be used like "Iron Man's armor (Mark III)" (or Iron Man Armor (Mark III)", with the benefit of having "Iron Man Armor" as a list page, but that's a separate proposal. Still, if a page title needs to be changed, it's probably not the best title Evalprime (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the Iron Man/War Machine armor pages to remove their DISPLAYTITLEs to eliminate confusion. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   17:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with getting rid of DISPLAYTITLE as well. It gives the Wiki a more professional look which goes is in line with the style we want. It’s also not hard to find Moon Knight (TV series) instead of Moon Knight, as when you type Moon Knight into the Wiki’s search bar, it’s the second option that comes up. It’s also linked several times on Moon Knight’s page, with the first link on the page being the Moon Knight disambiguation which allows you to find the show page. - Fish Master 41 (Message Wall) 15:03, July 06, 2024 (PST)

My reply is a reply to all. DISPLAYTITLE is cool. It should stay. That's my personal opinion.    Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions   03:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

After careful deliberation with Staff members, we have decided to retain DISPLAYTITLE. Discussions were had about maybe allowing (TV series) to exist in the DISPLAYTITLE for shows to address that concern, but then upon realizing the same metric would need to be applied for books, movies and other media, Staff consensus was to retain the current format. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   17:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Policy proposal changes to be moved to respective policies' talk pages {{{sig}}}

I have a few suggestions on how the policy itself could be changed that have minimal to no impact:

1. It is possible to create an article where the title begins with a lowercase letter if you use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, which should be advised to avoid any strange circumstances (if there were an article for eBay, for example, the article title would read EBay without this rule), so the "Page names always begin with a capital letter" rule is strange. I can't think of an instance where this is actually applicable but it's best to prepare just in case.
2. The "Spaces in the title of your page" rule serves no purpose, and I think we can improve it with a link to the MediaWiki manual for title restrictions and exceptions we can add if a title happens to include a pipe or a colon that would assign an article to a namespace.
3. We should clarify how organizations are titled to favor full names over abbreviations, except for rare cases like S.H.I.E.L.D. we can also get rid of "Avoid using a period (aka full-stop) (.) at the end of a page name" Evalprime (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

1. The policy says it is a software requirement, but if it's actually not, then I see it as fine to have lowercase in certain instances.
2. Like I mean, if it's not a software requirement then I don't see a reason not to use it when it's needed.
3. I agree with this. It is inconsistent. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 20:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Technically, you can't create articles that start with a lowercase letter in MediaWiki unless isCapitalized() is false, but for Fandom wikis it is set to true by default. the way of getting around that is by setting {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, which works because any link to that page name (lowercase letter or not) will link to the same place. tony Stark and Tony Stark redirect to Iron Man. the only restrictions are when a title interferes with wiki linking syntax, a namespace (virtual or real) name, or other strange exceptions that are linked in that manual Evalprime (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of lowercase, would you consider using capital letters at the start of each sentence? It'll be appreciated. As for this specific proposal itself, just as a reminder we will be reviewing ALL policies. Your suggestions here will be taken into consideration when working on policy amendments. Please use the Talk page for each specific policy that exists (as of now) to post your proposals; it will be easier for us to reference it when making amendments. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   22:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Citation/reference templates have been approved and having begun a slow rollout implementation. Timestamps in citations have been rejected. {{{sig}}}

Right now, citations are being inserted as regular wikilinks. It would be helpful if citations had a page number or a specific timestamp to look at. In addition, bare URLs are vulnerable to link rot. We should use citation templates to make it easier to do that. rather than typing a full citation, you could type {{Ref|DS}} to cite the film Doctor Strange with an optional timestamp parameter Evalprime (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

While I like the idea of having templates, I don't think we should be citing page numbers or timestamps. It makes references messy, particularly for larger characters. -Jessica3801 (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It's just an additional entry, something like "p. 63" or "17:38" to add on the end to make sure a statement can be supported later on. For example, I don't know where the nickname "Spider-Lord" comes from (on Spider-Man's infobox). I'm sure it's probably onscreen somewhere, but the reference doesn't tell me where Evalprime (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamps is an immense endeavor for this franchise. Community members would have to review every single television show episode and movie to find specific timestamps. It's not worth it in my opinion. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   21:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say we had to apply it to every single article that uses a citation, just something available for people to use if they want (they should but it's not always simple on mobile editing) Evalprime (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless you intend to gather the appropriate timestamps yourself, you're asking an awful lot of the community. Also it'd be widely inconsistent if only certain things had timestamps. As for book citations, different editions of the same book (ex. US/UK versions) have different pages, and citing references with "US page 60" or "US page 60, UK page 72" would also be a hassle. Unless you're willing to find all timestamps by yourself, I would personally veto this proposal. Community resources are better allocated elsewhere. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   22:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anyone to go back and get timestamps for everything, it's just something that would be helpful if they did have it to include. Yes, it's inconsistent, but that's no reason to keep doing it or even reject citation templates altogether, which don't need to include page numbers at all if that's what it takes to get a template. And we could include an edition parameter Evalprime (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

We would not want to have inconsistent references, so yes, this would involve an overhaul. It would also look messy on pages such Iron Man. What timestamp would you use, for example, for the section "Kidnapped by the Ten Rings"? The opening? When we go back there? And even if there was a clean way to only need one reference for each subheading, that would still require a lot of references for a single movie or episode. It would make things messy, particularly for books. Look at Tom Bianchi for an example of that. -Jessica3801 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

For events that are shown on screen, you wouldn't need a timestamp because there's proof of it in the work. I'm talking about citing one specific claim that is hard to reference later on. If I want to find where a nickname came from, I would need to go through a transcript, and that might be impossible if it wasn't said anywhere but it's on screen. Fine, no page numbers or citations. Not bringing it up. Let's just talk about creating something like {{Ref|DS}}. Evalprime (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I prefer our format of using <ref name="insertname"/>. The simplicity there is key. Sites like Wikipedia and Wookieepedia are so particular about the reference/citation format that it deters many editors, including myself, from contributing. I know bare links are vulnerable to link rot, but those bare links are often tweets/web articles/outside articles. Links that would still fall victim to rot despite being transcluded in a template, no? I am not inherently opposed to the idea of a citation template, but I am curious what the innate draw to it is. A massive undertaking of edits to switch to this format, but what are the positives of its implementation? •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Being simple is the point. It's easier to include and type a template, helps us keep track of what's being cited where, and prevents typos. Including more information is more being professional but it's easier to do if you're citing from a template. For example, if we wanted to include a link to the Disney+ URL for a movie or the director's name, which I think Wikipedia does, it would be harder to do that because every editor would be expected to know that. But in a template, we control the output, so typing that information would be easier. Only part to that is making the template, which is a bit harder than just a Lua table because of the way referencing names works but it's possible. Evalprime (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well if it's possible, and you have the knowledge to help bring about this change that you're proposing, I'd like to ask that you create a template on your User page or Sandbox. That way we can test it and see if it's viable enough for potential site-wide adoption. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   14:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I created a module at Module:References and a template (with an example) at Template:Ref. I only put in one entry in the data dictionary for now because it's really late right now and I don't know all of the names. That may have to be separated into another module at some point for easy editing Evalprime (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

We will cover MCU inspired Theme Park Universe in the future {{{sig}}}

One of the biggest gaps in the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki's coverage of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's tie-in media is the Marvel Theme Park Universe, the version of the MCU that appears in Disney theme parks and cruise lines. If you want a more in-depth explanation of the Marvel Theme Park Universe and why I think the wiki should cover it see this page so that all my information can be properly sourced. - DemKnux (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It is low priority, but we will be including the Theme Park universe due to a discovery of a quote discovered by Kevin Feige confirming that they do consider Avengers Campus as part of the MCU franchise, and only because of this quote. It is an eventual goal to create these pages, and the formatting is still being worked out. -Jessica3801 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Staff Approved {{{sig}}}

I have mostly sat on this proposal up until now due to me becoming busy with various things, not editing for a long time, etc. Due to the change in leadership, this proposal may gain more traction quickly so I think I will just propose it now. Currently, Project:About is very sparse and has outdated formatting. Many similarly-sized wikis have very detailed about pages that detail the entire history of their sites, so I have created a similar updated about page for this one. It can be found here. I would also say that this about page should be open for regular user edits, so that its history section can be kept up-to-date. Rman41 - Blogs - Message Wall - Guestbook 09:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, I really like this! A history of our Wiki. I'm not sure if many will take part in a project to continually expand this specific page, but I'd like to be proven wrong. I am in favor of you porting your draft to the mainspace page and I hope having it open for regular user edits leads to appropriate updates. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   09:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been in favor since I first saw the page created. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 13:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. -Jessica3801 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Implementation of Alternate Universe templates chosen over categories {{{sig}}}

It would be useful to have a category for each A.U. which would contain its characters, items, locations, etc. What do you think? Incursion Lee (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

We have all the info on the alternate universe pages. This would be category spam. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 20:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but when we are on a character's page, we don't know the universe which they are from (only the URL gives us the information). I think it would be less category spam than the "[Media title] Characters" categories (and others like this), since the media which characters are in is already displayed in their infobox, unlike their universe. Incursion Lee (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That problem is actually a part of something that has a very high chance of being passed in the future, which would be utilizing the AltUniverse template so note and filter which universe the article is from. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 16:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it the template in your Sandbox, Raff? I saw it a while ago. - GarrettPlayzRBLX - Message Wall • Contributions 20:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 13:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That looks good to me. - GarrettPlayzRBLX - Message Wall • Contributions 17:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I like this template a lot, it would be a good alternative. Why didn't you propose it? Also, I think that the name of the universe should link to its page. Incursion Lee (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I did propose it long ago (during the Canon Policy Proposal). That was before there were universe pages. So now it would have the links. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 17:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal denied {{{sig}}}

Right now appearances for just about every page in infoboxes and the appearances section are done manually, but I think we could improve upon that by automating the process. This is a pretty rough draft of an idea I just came up with but essentially it would involve two templates, one to record that a character was in some sort of media, and another to display that with a data querying extension and a lot of Lua work. Fandom doesn't allow for anything like SMW which limits my ability to work on this, but I think they allow you to request Cargo, which I can probably work with in Lua (with some external help) Evalprime (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer updating the Infobox Appearances for Characters manually rather than having the process automated. For the actual Appearances section later down the page, near the bottom, I could see some merit for a module or a template but I also think having it be "as is" would make it easier for newer editors to contribute, as well as easier for any editor to amend on the fly. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Logan, it doesn't seem necessary to me. -Jessica3801 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a fan of manual. I do not like the idea of even more things being automated. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 23:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Explicit discouraging will be added to Manual of Style upon next official revision {{{sig}}}

I was looking at Doctor Strange and I noticed that the word "Capturing" in the third paragraph has three links. The purpose of links is to guide readers to pages. This doesn't help the reader, and there's no indication that these are separate links, especially on mobile where links might be fat fingered. This could be disallowed under a broader manual of style change to discourage linking articles where there are two links together, such as [[Chitauri]] [[Chitauri Invasion|Invasion]]. If characters need to be listed out (in this case I don't think they do), a comma is good enough. Evalprime (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"Sea of blue" links are discouraged. Wording to explicitly discourage them is on the docket of being added to the Manual of Style. It's a matter of when, not if. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   00:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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