Board Thread:Moderators/@comment-24800939-20160517205923/@comment-3406131-20170323091554

Nausiated wrote: As for related characters, (IE: Anyone who is not specifically named something) they should be listed in a /Related field. IE: Spider-Man/Related, which can be organized into more specific categories as needed. Without talking about the pages requiring the subpages, it is important to respect relevancy on this section. For example, we have Minister Marvel (Earth-616) in Captain Marvel, when his place is definitively only in Mar-Vell.

The separation into many pages of individual people must also allow us to separate the others and related and re-attach them to the characters they are related, when they're specifically related to the individual and not to the alias (but I assume all of you think pretty much the same way).

We can vote at least on the first part (what I call "how we handled [[Captain Marvel") of what Nausiated described (in a way clearer way than I tried): Nausiated wrote: I would suggest having the characters code name as a disambiguation page that directs characters to the different individuals who has gone under that name. The most current one(s) get top billing followed by the others.

Code Name -> A list of all the individuals who went under that code name, one link for each individual (first name/last name as applicable) with no universe designations. Each link redirects to

First Name/Last Name -> Gives a detailed list of all the alternate reality iterations of that character.

So if you go to Spider-Man

It would give you the option of choosing Peter Parker, Miles Morales, Otto Octavius, basically everyone who has operated under the name Spider-Man would have a link on this page

When you go to Peter Parker, then that breaks down all the versions of Peter Parker, regardless of if he was Spider-Man or not. Ditto for Miles, Otto, and everyone else.

That will address the general issue without forcing a decision on the following part of subpages, new forms of pages, and even if it doesn't solve the issue of having too many links in a disambiguation, it will slightly diminish the problem (better than nothing), time for us to create the model Copeinator and others are creating.

Whether in favor or against (or in the middle) the proposition, don't hesitate to add new arguments, not only in order to support your position but to help reach the best solution.

ADour: AnnabellRice: Artful Dodger: KalKent: Mrkermit: Nausiated: The Many-Angled One: Undoniel: Yes Copeinator123: Hufflepuffgirl28: LoveWaffle: Monolith616: MysteryScooby: Nurdboy42: Shabook: SunGodKizaru:

I hope nobody thinks I'm rushing the issue, because it's been a while, and nothing better that a vote to settle the change and allow us to progress further.