Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-1713281-20130314165720/@comment-1895174-20130315232803

Nausiated wrote: I don't really get how it can be "not necessarily true", if you check out the last run of Marvel Handbooks, pretty much every Marvel cartoon, tv show and movie up to that point in publication were assigned an Earth-number, the rest will likely follow suit. As for the SHIELD series, if I'm not mistaken it is set in the Marvel movie universe (Earth-199999) You said anyone who sees the character's image could tell if it was from a movie or TV series, which isn't true for the animated straight-to-DVD movies (like Ultimate Avengers: The Movie). And while the SHIELD TV series is set within the MCU, it is a TV series and not a movie, so the characters adapted for it would not be listed under the Movie section of the disambig page. Nausiated wrote: I would wager that majority of people coming to the Wiki would primarily be coming to read about the Earth-616 characters. Not an ironclad assumption. Jamie's said that the wiki experiences a spike in traffic whenever a movie's about to be released. And even if it is true, that doesn't mean the multitude of other universes should be treated with less respect. Nausiated wrote: I would only recommend doing a separate secondary page for all alternate reality characters (including movie/TV characters) if the character themselves has a large amount of alternate reality counterparts. Otherwise, I'd say keep it all on one page. So someone like Spider-Man would have his own alternate reality index page, versus someone like Killraven, who only has about 2 or 3 alternate reality counterparts. Of course, that's always been the suggestion. But if you're migrating Spider-Man's film, television, and video game appearances into one section, then it defeats the purpose of moving the Alternate Reality section to its own sub-page. Nausiated wrote: I think it's about the same as the reason why we don't create profiles for out of continuity characters that are featured in Marvel novels and children's books etc. The information about that character is so sparse when you divorce it from the source material.

Especially considering the fact that with a lot of older games didn't have very complex plots so there is only so much you could really write. Many of which were already done away with during the TRN purge. But many of the more recent video games have enough of a story to warrant inclusion.

As if having enough of a story is a requirement for getting a page. If you open the floodgates for that on video game universes, who's to say it couldn't also be applied to movies, TV shows, or even some comics. Should Jim Hammond's cameo in Captain America: The First Avenger or any of the three Fantastic Five "What-If" versions of Doctor Doom get a page, when the version of Peter Parker that appears in the Ultimate Spider-Man video game doesn't? Nausiated wrote: This is getting a bit off topic from the Disambiguation thing... But I'd say that while video games are also equally as important, I don't think that a profile for a character for each different video game they've appeared in is a bit much. If anything, I think they should be condensed to one article, for example "Peter Parker (Video Games)" And do a history of all the different video games the character has appeared in. Of course we've gotten off topic. The problem is "how do we fix the problem on disambiguation pages", but what you're suggesting is fundamentally re-writing the way the site operates. It's not a viable option.