Last point, to say that we should accept this on the pretense that "Marvel doesn't care about continuity" is an assumption and also, for our work -- and sorry to be so blunt -- is bullshit. Honestly guys. We have never ignored continuity in the past. Why are we doing it now? You guys AREN'T lazy, but that mentality is.
Also, in the past, we have never tossed out prevously established continuity. We have pointed out conflicts, sure, but we have not tossed out what has been said before based on what is the current (and unfleshed out, or unresolved) story in the here and now.
Point of comparison, for ADour's sake being an Iron Man fan and all, the retelling of Iron Man's origins in 2004 where it went from Vietnam to Afganistan. We do not say it was Afganistan and NOT Vietname (or South East Asia to be more generic) we present all sides of all the conflicting info because we know that it will probably change at some point. Leave it open enough for interpretation in other words.
Sidebar on that, you're all fond of not making main pages too lengthy. Inserting the "All-New X-Men" into 60s era continuity makes an excessively long portion. Is All-New X-Men stuff expanded history? Is it main page stuff? We haven't discussed that, at least. In the grand scheme, I'd say that All-New X-Men continuity is LESS important than say the 50+ years of non-All-New-X-Men continuity.
So, again, it's not as simple as accepting it at face value. We're also talking about what is relevant to the main page, or what goes into Expanded History.
I will conceed to an All-New X-Men being part of Earth-616's past if again, you can explain make a compelling argument for it, but also explain how --format wise-- we display it on the site. Because at this point, all we're doing is consoldiating information and saying THIS deserves to be on the main page over this because THIS is newer. Which, I would argue is not the way to look at it.
Especially with the original X-Men. All of them have been through so much change before Bendis did All-New.
So my argument is less about HERE And NOW and more how EVERYTHING fits. We're not DC. It's not reboot every decade. All of it matters. Nothing is discounted.
I guess another way to put it. Look at my continuity notes for a comic summary. Explain it to me like that.I explain in a lot of detail and spell out a lot of valid points and admit conjecture, assumption, or interpretation when things are not very clear. Do that for me. Please, spear no detail.
That's the problem with communication. You're not giving me enough detail to accept this decision.
So, to be clear, was there a thread on the wiki about the decision making, or was that decided on Discord? I'm just asking to be clear on when this was discussed, decided upon, and ratified. If there is a thread I can read, I'd like to be pointed to it. Just asking since we all agreed that Discord wasn't a place to make editorial decisions.
That said, I will admit that I haven't read past Extinction, while you are making compelling arguments, please cite the comics in question. The only person who has done that is MysteryScooby. I can't verify and fact check unless you point out what comics you're talking about.
I'd love to accept things at face value, but I think we need all eyes on the issue. No offence to anyone, I don't want to make this a "I know more about such-and-such than you" I am looking to verify facts.
And yes we can, as ADour puts it "accept the writer's intention" position, but we learned from 2015 Secret Wars that's not always a guarenteee (Vis-a-vie Brevoorts objection to Susan Storm in the Marvel NOW handbook post secret wars)
More to the point, this is a similar debate as Spider-Man 2099 and the multitue of Meistros. In all of those cases, I've pointed out very valid counter points in the assumption that that 2099 is this 2099 and that Maestro is this Maestro by pointing out very poignent plot issues to explain it.
Look, all I am saying is give me specific references. Citations. Issue numbers outside of Extinction that support the claims that ALSO negate any previous establishment of known facts. Present a good case. All you have given me is that you all agree on points you haven't made apparent. You havent given me a basis where I feel comfortable to accept it.
To the point, again, and I am not saying this in a "I know more than you do", I am saying this in I have seen contrary to accepting things at face value, or what the writer intended, or what the editor intended.
Look, I wasn't part of the discussion, but I also pointed out the incongruities of other important things (Again, Spider-Man 2099 and Maestro).
I guess a finer point is, a few of you harp on me about making unilateral decisions about design and style. Here we are on an issue of continuity and I have to accept it based on less than half of the admin/mod sect?
Again, not saying you're wrong, but give me a chance to look at your evidence and peer review. The majority of you go on about how we need to discuss things, I am trying to understand the logic. So discuss it with me.
I'm putting forward that the reason for going back to the TRNs is because there is no confirmation that these X-Men were from Earth-616. The only thing that is confirmed is that Cable returns them to the past they CAME from. There is ZERO confirmation that that past belongs to Earth-616.
Until a handbook comes out to clarify it, or there is more coroboration other than young Cable's say-so, we can't assume that it is the past of Earth-616.
Not to step on anyone's toes, but whoever decided to change all the "All-New" X-Men to be their Earth-616 counterparts, I think they've been very premature in that assessment and is also negating everything we discussed in the following thread in the past. I've posted my thoughts on why this is premature (see post #12) I think we should have discussed this as a group before it was arbitrarily decided that the young X-Men were actually from Earth-616 especially since there are countless examples that would prove contrary to this.
For those not keeping track at home 1137 is referring to Extermination #1-5 (some friendly advice, 1137, never assume that everyone knows what you're talking about so it's always good to cite references to your opinions when making your case just so people know what you're talking about)
There is one flaw in your theory. It was never stated that the "past" that Hank went into was the past of Earth-616.
There are a few things to keep in mind here:
To put it another way, when present day Hank McCoy first went back in time in All-New X-Men #1, his act of being in the past and interacting with the younger versions of the original X-Men is the point of divergence. You have original past (Earth-616) and the past where future Hank goes back in time.
When young Cable returns the young X-Men back to the past, it is more likely THEIR past (as in the divergent one created by future Hanks time travelling) as opposed to the past of Earth-616. It's a case of the genie being out of the bottle.
The other thing to also consider about young Cable is this: While he comes from a possible future of the young X-Men's timeline it is likely not have any connection to the possible future of Earth-616.
A perfect example of what I mean can be gleaned from the original Days of Future Past storyline. In X-Men #141, Kitty Pryde goes back in time to prevent the assassination of Robert Kelly. However, when Rachel Summers later goes back in time in Uncanny X-Men #184-188, she quickly realizes that the "past" that Kitty Pryde travelled to was not her own, but one of a parallel universe that was mostly the same.
It's kind of the same situation when you've got the Beast going back in time to bring the young X-Men into the future. In that scenario, he's the Rachel Summers of the scenario, but worse, because not only did he not end up in his own past, he also took these other X-Men to his own reality creating the whole catalyst for young Cable to appear.
Here's the last thing to consider:
If you were to accept that the young X-Men are from the past of Earth-616, you also have to consider young Cable. If he was concerned about preserving the Earth-616 timeline, he would not have gone to the present day and kill his older self. young Cable being in the present day negates his whole premise of "preserving the timeline" because young Cable is STILL in the present, jeopardizing his own timeline. This is because his olderself has been present on Earth-616 almost consistently since his first appearance in New Mutants #86. The fact that his younger self is in the present day after EVERYTHING that older Cable did since New Mutants #86 puts his own future (and the past of Earth-616) at risk as well.
Whoever has been going and changing all of the All-New X-Men stuff to place the characters as being the Earth-616 versions is being really premature about it and that should all be changed back to the original TRNS.
Emitewiki2 wrote: Are you thinking that each episode of non-linear shows (that don't have seasons, like, say, YouTube series) would each have its own page with the title of the episode in it? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "page name".
Well the [[Page Name|Episode Title]] is just kind of a general thing. "Page Name" would be whatever the name of the episode is formatted to follow our page naming standards. Hope that clarifies it for you.
Emitewiki2 wrote: I like that idea! Would we be able to have it so that the template could work for forms of media that both have seasons and don't have seasons, as well?
I suppose you mean how ordering things goes:
| Season1_1 =
| Season1_2 =
Maybe we can build in something more generic for series that don't have "seasons" per se. Giving it some thought, maybe we can come up with something that can be generic where contributors can make the "episodes" fit whatever format the situation demands. Kind of like how the comic template has add-in lines for unique credits like this:
| CustomRole1_1 = CUSTOM ROLE 1 HEADER FOR STORY 1
| CustomMembers1_1 = CUSTOM ROLE 1 TEXT FOR STORY 1
Something similar like that could be used. Like...
| CustomSeries1_1 = Podcast
| CustomEpisode1_1 = [[Page Name|Episode Title]]
Perhaps something like that could work best so we don't have to always tweak a series template whenever a new medium comes out.
AnnabellRice wrote:I believe Spider-Man should be converted into a mantle disambiguation like we did with Captain Marvel and from there a separate disambiguation exclusive to Peter Parker should be created similar to that of Carol Danvers.
I would suggest that Spider-Man should only have a single entry for every character who has used that name and those pages link to a disambig for their real name (this would be especially helpful for the other more prominent Spider-Men such as Miles Morales, Miguel O'Hara and Ben Reilly) I would also recommend nixing the "Teams" section and "Related" (in that we should remove characters who aren't specifically called Spider-Man but are similar) I feel that those two sections in particular completely distract from the purpose of the page.
Re: Harasar's redesign for ASM Vol 1. Great job. I like the new workout as usual you've taken a problem and hit it out of the park with a solution. This format will be a great help with other soon-to-be problematic Vol 1 titles moving forward.
I think adjusting the series template to fit a broader spectrum of media types would be the best way to handle this. Maybe adding a line to the template like:
| SeriesType =
The user could enter TV Series, YouTube, or Podcast (and whatever else may come up).
Post script: I just looked and they literally have not contributed anywhere in that time. Also they list their location as "SL,UT" To be frank, on that later point, that is disparaging towards women. If they were serious about anything they wouldn't have something so misogynistic on their profile page. Don't care if it's a joke or whatever, it's tone deaf. So I am going to hard nope them on this
I haven't looked but if we're going to give them another chance we should look to see if they were contributing to other Fandom eikis during their downtime and determine two things:
Primary: were they having issues with admins on that wiki and if they were was it a one-and-done situation that comes with newbies on a wiki and...
Secondary: were their edits considered of value to that other wiki.
On the second point: were they making quality edits. It's one thing to fix a grammatical error or change a syntax. Those kind of edits are a dime a dozen. However if they were making detailed fact based edits that are based on solid research that's a valuable contributor.
I'm more of a quality over quantity person. The ban was here (as far as I know) so if they spent the past seven months doing nothing at all then I don't feel they have done anything to prove themselves. There are countless wikis and I don't belive that one person can only have one interest. If they really wanted to be part of the Fandom community they would have contributed elsewhere on another site.
To be clear, I haven't looked to see if that is the case or not, I am just positing some of my ideas on the subject in a general sense.
I think if we got someone that wants back in and they have proven they have good behavior elsewhere and have done quality edits in that other domain we should at least consider the idea. Especially after so much time.
Copeinator123 wrote: And I think that's a great disservice to those stories, where unless there is a wiki better suited for the information, then if it was published by Marvel it should fall under our umbrella, we are the Marvel Database. I've never seen it expliclty defined we had to limit ourselves to just "Marvel Superheroes stemming from the works of Lee, Kirby, Ditko"
The imprint stuff also gets kind of sticky. Kick-Ass has moved from Marvel's Icon imprint to Image last year. Ditto for Kingsman. Powers started off as an Image series, I'm guessing it'll probably go back there like all the other Icon titles did when Marvel ended the imprint. My gut says that since they're creator owned stuff and they are all being published by Image maybe we should collaborate with the people over at the Image Wiki and come up with something.
Copeinator123 wrote: 100% disagree with that, there are thousands of one-shot characters that the appendix alone found interesting enough to give a page. And just going through the golden age comics to see where a lot of them originated and 2011 you may have disagreed since you worked on a lot of one-shot characters (though i'm sure most if not all were connected to Cap, Namor etc in some way)
That takes me back. In those days I was creating pages for one-off Golden Age villains that were unique or interesting. I think I probably went over-kill with some of the Nazi and Imperial Japanese soldiers, not realizing how one-dimensional they all were in those days.
Then there were the western characters from that era that have never been seen since (Arrowhead, Tex Morgan, Blaze Carson, Buckskin Billy etc. etc.), I look at them as kind of grey areas. There's nothing official (that I am aware of) confirming if they are part of Earth-616, but they're also from the days of the American Frontier so it's not like they'd make a huge impact if they were-or-weren't included.
I also delved into some Korean War era stories that had recurring characters, but they were confirmed as cannon in the Marvel Atlas.
Then there's the mountain of romance comics that are out there. I think we haven't really delved into the cannonicity of Tessie the Typist because, really, who wants to ready a dated romance comic from the 1950s? I tried ready old Patsy Walker comics and I had to nope out because they were really bad.
Speaking of Conan, my letter asking this very question was published in the letter pages of Conan the Barbarian Vol 3 #6. They don't really answer my questions on if the Dark Horse stuff is considered part of Marvel Conan cannon. They just used it as a excuse to plug the reprints(!) They do confirm that the old Marvel stuff and the new Marvel stuff is the same Conan.
Some of the recurring Korean War characters that appeared in various Atlas era war comics are also considered cannon per Marvel Atlas #1's entry on Korea. The referenced characters are:
I think that this is a currently evolving subject these days, particularly with Disney (and by extension Marvel) buying up all sorts of properties over the past few years.
I do have some thoughts on a few aspects of this conversation...
I think this is going to be a being one moving forward since Dark Horse had the rights to Conan from 1999ish(?) until 2018. The big question I have is if that Dark Horse stuff is considered cannon to Marvel's version of Conan? On the one hand, Marvel is reprinting some of the Dark Horse stuff. On the other hand, Marvel has reprinted the Star Wars books that Dark Horse released as well.
Me, I think we should hold off on if the Dark Horse Conan stuff is Marvel cannon for the time being unless something is officially stated confirming this. Unless there is something I'm missing, I don't think they have.
Also, we don't know if Marvel intends to reprint all of the Dark Horse Conan books either (with some exception, as I am sure they won't be able to reprint the Conan/Wonder Woman crossover that happened last year). I point to the Dark Horse Star Wars stuff as an example. Marvel reprinted some of it in 2014 when they got the license back but... have they continued reprinting the Dark Horse stuff?
Other Licensed Stuff I'd handle this on a case-by-case basis. Unless it's obvious that they are on Earth-616 (which hasn't really been a thing since the early 80s, excepting the Conan revival this year) or some kind of multiversal connection to Earth-616, we should consider it non-cannon in any way and should defer people to the appropriate Wiki.
Then again, when it comes to the multiversal connections, we should only be covering the characters are that are entrenched in the Marvel multiverse.
Marvels G.I. Joe/Transformers comics are part of the Marvel Multiverse for a few reasons. The US Books primarily because they have a version of Spider-Man in that reality (although he only appears once and is never seen again). The UK books primarily because of Death's Head. However, we don't have profiles for every G.I. Joe or Transformer. We leave those up to the respective wikis. We do however have pages for the reality designations and some of the Marvel owned stuff (Death's Head, Circuit Breaker, that one-off Spider-Man etc.)
Atlas/Timely Anthology Books This is a tough one. Especially since Marvel continues to add stuff into continuity with their themed handbooks (Marvel 75th, Marvel Monsters and Vampires come to mind immediately)
I think unless we get some kind of confirmation we should consider them non-cannon unless we got some confirmation. When you consider these stories they are almost all one-off stories. Very few characters that appear in these stories appear in another story. The ones that have, I think it is safe to assume, have all been considered part of Marvel cannon. Creating pages for one-off characters seems kind of a pointless endeavor since their profiles are going to say the same thing as the issue they appear in.
However, if I were to think of a compromise, maybe we could come up with an Index page (like the Character Index) that lists all of these questionable characters.
I must have missed that when I was skimming through that series again. Still, even if he could, it wouldn't explain why he'd need Doctor Doom's time travel tech when he had access to the Collector's reality hopping tech (which would be much more sophisticated)