Marvel Database

Due to recent developments, please be aware that the use of large language model or generative AIs in writing article content is strictly forbidden. This caveat has now been added to the Manual of Style and Blocking Policy.


Marvel Database

/Archive 1

Naming conventions of different cultures[]

I propose we delete this text from section Marvel Database:Naming Conventions#Character Pages:

Characters use the naming convention of their own culture. The Chinese list their surname first, etc.
Example: Xi'an Coy Manh

We should use same naming convention as our sources (comics, handbooks). See also Talk:Kwan Zhao (Earth-616)#Naming and Talk:Tang Jhimon (Earth-616)#Naming. —Mrkermit (talk) 18:36, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

I don't have many recent Handbooks, so I haven't seen the entries for those two. Does anyone have a Handbook that shows those references?
As for a Naming Convention change, we can certainly remove that section and say that we will follow the Handbooks.
Artful Dodger (talk) 13:05, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
I think that only Handbook reference is given on Talk:Tang Jhimon (Earth-616). It contradicted our naming policy so I removed the policy text, like proposed on opening post. —Mrkermit (talk) 18:56, May 29, 2016 (UTC)
Works for me.
Artful Dodger (talk) 21:26, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Exceptions for the capitlization of "van" in a page name[]

I think it should be specified for the word "van" that there are exceptions when it comes to capitalizing the letter "v" in it, such as if a character for example has Belgian descent, for example Victor Van Damme (Earth-1610). But I am note sure how we should specify the exceptions for that word in the list for general conventions.

KalKent (Anton) (Earth-1218) (talk) 19:24, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
How does THIS look? —Mrkermit (talk) 20:14, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but I instead of the exception just being under the list of words, it should specify that it's for the word "van", followed immediately by an example, rather than having the example directly under the exception. The reason I'm asking is because I'm not an expert when it comes to how Wikia formats it all. I was thinking the way Wikipedia does where they have "notes" as citations.
KalKent (Anton) (Earth-1218) (talk) 20:23, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not really sure what you mean. I wrote that exception thinking we should follow the style from the comics and we should not care about real world conventions. If you meant that on unclear cases we should capitalize Van if the character is a Belgian, I'm not against it. Besides, as I examined these naming conventions, I guess that Americans can choose to capitalize names as they wish so would that exception affect also to Victor von Doom? —Mrkermit (talk) 21:10, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the exception, but would also point out there should be a preference for cases where sources conflict. I've seen both "Janet van Dyne" and "Janet Van Dyne" for example.
- LoveWaffle (talk) 21:27, March 2, 2017 (UTC)
I first meant to write most commonly used but then realised that we should give more weight to more canonical sources like handbook citation over Golden Age comics. As we don't have any Canon policy, I wasn't able to word it better. —Mrkermit (talk) 22:06, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of page titles[]

I propose that we stop using capital letters on every word in page titles (capital letter in the first word is a technical requirement). We should follow sentence case and capitalize titles same as in elsewhere (proper nouns and other rules). I think that it's aesthetically more pleasing but the biggest advantage would be easier linking as the page name would be same as in the article text. Wikilinks are case sensitive after the first word so with a policy change we could drop piped linking from eg. Alicia Masters' Home, Ringmaster's Hat, Cyclops' Motorcycle. We have pages like Peter Quill's father (Earth-199999) and Glossary:Comic Book which have stood years against our naming policies just because they are better names without capitalization. Even zillion members category pages have defiled this rule, like Category:X-Men members. —Mrkermit (talk) 00:26, March 5, 2017 (UTC)

"No. If it was a proper title, it would, but this is a utility page, so to speak."
I would like some uniformity, but have no strong opinion one way or the other regarding sentence case. Just thought his response to my earlier question was something worth bringing up.
- LoveWaffle (talk) 00:44, March 5, 2017 (UTC)
  • I personally prefer using title case, as we're dealing with a title after all, though I have to say I find sentence case to look better for categories. I don't know why. In order to reach uniformity, I'd choose title case over sentence case.
    --The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 01:05, March 5, 2017 (UTC)

It's good to know that Spencer has agreed with me earlier but unfortunately it won't help us now. I think that his answer and Adour's comment about sentence case with category names reflect the fact that 99.5 % of article names are proper nouns anyway. But pages on other namespaces have relatively much more pages which would be affected by the proposed change, eg. Category:Multiple Mouths, Category:Mental Health Professionals, Category:Weapon Users. On Help namespace sentence case is already widely used. Maybe it's because title case isn't used on Europe, I don't even like the look of those titles, although title case is used purely for aesthetical reasons. Would it be possible to allow sentence case on other namespaces excluding the main?Mrkermit (talk) 19:01, March 11, 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be opposing opinions about this but before proceeding I want to make clear what I'm going to change.

  • Capitalize every word in the title in the main namespace (except as above). The convention prevents the confusion of whether certain words should be capitalized or not. (eg. Senator Kelly for President, not Senator Kelly for president)
  • Use sentence case in the title in the other namespaces. Capitalize only the first word and proper nouns. (eg. Category:Weapon users, not Category:Weapon Users)
Mrkermit (talk) 11:14, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
At first glance, it seems too simplist. Category:Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division members, and many other pages, combine both. There aren't just two general cases. Also, pages like Marvel Films and Marvel Television Series contradict each other...--Shabook (talk) 11:33, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
Category:Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division members is already written in sentence case because SHIELD is a proper name/noun. It's against our current policy and isn't affected by the proposed change. Marvel Films is written in sentence case in the main namespace so it's against our policy. I first tried to propose a policy change to rename Marvel Television Series to Marvel television series but it failed to reach a consensus. —Mrkermit (talk) 16:22, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

Naming conventions on television series that shares a name with a different page[]

What is our current stance on the naming conventions of shows that shares a name with something else, and for live-action and animated shows? Should all shows, regardless if they're live-action or animated, have "(TV series)" (or the occasional "(XXXX TV series)" where the "XXXX" is the year)? Or should only live-action ones have "(TV series)" while animated ones have "(animated series)"?

If so, there should be a standard in terms of capitalization of the words. For example, shows like The Thing (animated series) and Fantastic Four (1967 animated series) are correct, while Ultimate Spider-Man (animated series) and Spider-Man Unlimited (animated series) (which only has "(animated)" and not "(animated series)" as part of its title) are wrong.

KalKent (Anton) (Earth-1218) (talk) 19:48, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

Just as an experiment, I googled "X-Men TV series" and "X-Men animated series". The latter gave me results exclusively for the animated series from the 1990s, even though its official title is just "X-Men". We list it with the common albeit unofficial title "X-Men: The Animated Series" while Wikipedia lists it as "X-Men (TV series)" and IMDb has it as "X-Men (TV Series 1992-1997)". A lot of superhero cartoons from the 90s are commonly given the unofficial subtitle "The Animated Series" (i.e. Batman: The Animated Series). The former search gave me results for not only that series but for Legion and the upcoming series The Gifted. "Animated series" might be better for specificity's sake.
- LoveWaffle (talk) 20:51, June 13, 2017 (UTC)
I assumed that whenever an animated show has "The Animated Series" as part of its title, that it was its full official title, like on Wikipedia for Silver Surfer. That is sometimes enough to distinguish itself from others shows that happen to share the same name.
KalKent (Anton) (Earth-1218) (talk) 20:58, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency with articles[]

Why is "the" not to be capitalized by "a" and "an" are? —Justin (koavf)·T·C 08:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The current instructions indicate that the parts of speech which should not capitalized include articles, so that would include "a" and "an" by default. They just didn't specify them in the list. --Ultimate Frog-Man (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why assume alternate reality counterparts have the same names as their prime counterparts?[]

Not every variant has the same name, so it's highly speculative to assume that they have the same name as their Earth-616 counterparts without confirmation. Every version of Abigail Brand was renamed Abigail Thanriaguiaxus because the 616 Brand was revealed to have that name in X-Men: Red (Vol. 2) #10. But we only know the 616 Brand is Thanriaguiaxus. How would we know the Abigail Brand from Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes was also named Thanriaguiaxus if the show was cancelled a decade before that name was thought of? If the writers thought her real name was Abigail Brand when working on the show, wouldn't it still be Abigail Brand in that universe? And now we've come to the Kang debacle. A few months ago, there was a discussion on Talk:Nathaniel Richards (Kang) (Earth-199999) whether to move him and his variants to remove Nathaniel Richards from his name because we never got any confirmation that he was Nathaniel Richards, but because of this rule, "Nathaniel Richards" had to be assumed to be the name of every character Jonathan Majors plays in the MCU franchise. However, the latest episode of Loki proved that Victor Timely was not Nathaniel but was still a variant of He Who Remains played by Jonathan Majors, making the MCU's Kang more likely to be Timely and not a Richards. So under the rule of alternate reality counterparts having the same name as their prime counterparts, would MCU's Kang's prime counterpart in this rule be Nathaniel Richards (Kang) (Earth-6311) or Victor Timely (Earth-TRN1071)? Actually, Victor Timely can't be a prime counterpart because he's only a variant of He Who Remains. But him as a variant as on the timeline implies that He Who Remains and Kang were born in the 1800's as Victor Timely and so were not Reed's decendant. But with Sylvie as a woman, Alligator Loki as a reptile and Boastful Loki as a black man and all three were variants of Loki, it doesn't seem like variants of the same person would necessarily have to be that alike, so we can't necessarily assume that Kang was Victor Timely and he could still be a variant of Victor from the 31st century named Nathaniel Richards. So I propose that we stop assuming alternate reality counterparts having the same names. Everyone's name should be checked and cited. Every Abigail Thanriaguiaxus page should be moved back to Abigail Brand except for the 616 page where her new name was confirmed. Same goes for other characters recently moved because of an Earth-616 retcon that should not affect any realities that ended before then. If a character's name is revealed in Earth-616, only the Earth-616 character should be moved. The alternate reality counterparts must wait for confirmation of the new name in their realities before they're moved. And characters whose real names are unrevealed in that reality but use the Earth-616 names because of this rule should be moved to their codenames. SeanWheeler (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Most simply, it is easier and not that big of a strecth to assume so unless there is evidence to the contrary. Whenever Iron Man makes a cameo in a What If? story that is divergent from Earth-616, it makes sense that this new reality's Iron Man is also Tony Stark, until the story given a reason to suggest otherwise. Indeed, for alternate realities set in different time periods or cultures the characters are usually named by their codename, especially when some birth names are already revealed to differ from the mainstream versions.
On the whole however, this rule holds for all recently diverged realities. And it wasn't invented by us out of nothing, the Handbook and the Unofficial Appendix take the same approach. Magneto's birth name was only revealed as Max Eisenhardt in the 2000s, and yet that name also holds true for countless alternate from stories publishes decades prior to that. Those with explicitly different history, such as Earth-10005 are not divergent from Earth-616, and thus their Magnetos retain their original name of Erik Lehnsherr. The same goes for Abigal Brand, as most of her known Variants have the history very similar to that of the Earth-616 version. Brand (Earth-25271) is a notabke exception, which is why that page was not renamed.
As for MCU Kang, changes made by adaptations are taken into account when they are revealed. In his first debute in Loki (TV series) Season 1 6 He Who Remains said he was a scienist from the 31st century - that's exactly the backstory of comic-book Kang, so there was no reason to assume he wasn't named Nathaniel Richards as well. Anyway, the rule will stay the way it is for a reason of consistency in page-naming, otherwise we'd be in a huge mess. Pages like Bruce Banner contain probably dozen of minor appearances that weren't named in their source, to presume them *not* to share the name of the mainstream counterpart would be far more inconvinient. HBK123 (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
What about Goblin 2099 in LEGO Marvel Super Heroes 2? Are we to assume a character's gender because of a twist from the comics when the game that was released after the twist still referred to the character as a male? SeanWheeler (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
If you wish to contest a recently performed move, feel free to do so by adding another move tag and explaining your reasoning on that talk page. Uncontested moves are performed automatically after some time, I have just recently experienced that myself with Luz (Earth-616), a page that was clearly moved in error simply because noone noticed the move tag to respond in time. HBK123 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
But wasn't Goblin 2099 assumed to be a man in the comics until her identity was revealed? She had a masculine looking costume and clearly her voice never tipped anyone off that she was a woman. Because of that, the hints in the game that Goblin 2099 is male would not be so valid. And while the game was released after the storyline that revealed Goblin 2099 to be Jennifer, we might need to take the game's development time in consideration and the possibility that TT Games never got the memo about Goblin 2099. Goblin 2099's bio card lists the character's first appearance as Spider-Man 2099 #36 which is Goblin's first costumed appearance. And that was Jennifer in the costume. But maybe the developers knew that but decided to keep Goblin 2099 as a mystery man? And if we have to move LEGO Goblin 2099 back because there's more hints of the character being a man, maybe we should check the other Goblin 2099s for gender-defining clues too? Have those other Goblin 2099s been confirmed to be Jennifer D'Angelo or were they also referred to as men? If they were never confirmed to be Jennifer and consistently been called "he," should they be moved back to Goblin or stay Jennifer because Jennifer in the Goblin costume was thought to be a man, so the he/him pronouns weren't good enough hints to assume Goblin is a man in those universes? I really hate gender revealing twists. The rule that we have to assume the characters have the same identity as their mainstream counterparts unless proven otherwise makes it even more awkward for twists like this. If a character was assumed to be a man for twenty years but revealed to be a woman, should we assume the counterparts were women too or do we keep assuming they're men? SeanWheeler (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)