Talk:Scarlett Johansson

Black Widow / Scarlett Johansson
Does the prose mention Black Widow or that Johansson is an actor from the Marvel Cinematic Universe? If so, then it needs writing in. If not, I'm not sure that infobox is allowed here. It's worth checking on that. We can only report that the N-Space Scarlett Johansson is an actor in the MCU if the source tells us. :) The  Farty  Doctor   Talk  20:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only that, the infobox needs to go because it's way too much longer than the article's text. (See Tardis:Guide to images.) Shambala108 ☎  20:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, right. Two things:
 * Firstly, navboxes can be conjecturally placed in pages. Practically most entries in navbox are based upon conjuncture.
 * Secondly, the size of the template has been discussed, and it needs to be converted to a "bottom of the page" style navbox. Additionally, many of the pages linked into the Marvel template suffer from the template being too large, so the removal from this page is kinda silly.  Epsilon  📯 📂 21:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still wanting to know whether there needs to be some in-universe connection between Black Widow and Scarlett Johansson to allow this infobox to be here? The  Farty  Doctor   Talk  21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Epsilon the Eternal it's policy, as I posted above. I suggest you read it. Shambala108 ☎  21:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So to note the navbox also appears on Jack Kirby, however, a previous version of the navbox listed Kirby in it (added by Epsilon, as it so happened). This was removed by User:66 Seconds under T:NO RW along with some other moves and User:LegoK9 declined to revert the changes. Speculation to identify Volstagg as Volstagg seems reasonable for the purposes of this navbox. Immediately insisting that the people who were involved in Marvel IRL were involved in-universe is a textbook violation of T:NO RW though, imo. Najawin ☎  21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Thefartydoctor, an in-universe connection is actually irrelevant to the placement of a navbox, which is an out-of-universe feature. There are hundreds of pages that follow this.
 * @Shambala108, oh, so you're going to be removing this template from nearly every page listed in the navbox? If not, that's extremely hypocritical. Epsilon  📯 📂 22:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Epsilon, that's just a blatant violation of T:POINT, C'mon. Najawin ☎  22:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. I simply don't want a double standard to be enforced here. There is a difference. Epsilon  📯 📂 22:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Epsilon the Eternal the job of cleaning up the wiki does not belong to just me. Anyone can do it. I do what I can when I can in what little time I have available. And maybe I would have more time if I didn't have to deal with users violating Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point and Tardis:No personal attacks. Shambala108 ☎  22:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shambala, I think you're getting infoboxes confused with navboxes here. The rule in T:GTI has always applied to infoboxes, which appear on the right side of a page, are tall and narrow — hence why they screw up the design if they're longer than the page. What we have here is a horizontal navbox. Those have appeared on even very short pages since time immemorial, and since their default state is collapsed, they don't screw up anything.
 * That being said, @Epsilon, I also agree with User:Najawin that you come very close to T:POINT in behaviour here, even if I agree with you on one aspect of the underlying policy. You appeared to be engaging in "malicious compliance"-type reasoning to, well — "prove a point". Whether that point is correct or not is irrelevant; this isn't the way to go about proving it!
 * And also, yeah, while the presence of a navbox seems feasible to me as far as the page's length is concerned, the Marvel navbox seems a bit tenuously-connected. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:Scrooge MacDuck when I made my first comment and the edit change, the navbox was acting as an infobox: it was on the right side of the page and extended well past the article text. It has since been changed to the correct format, which is why I have not re-removed it. Shambala108 ☎  23:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh! I see. Apologies. That does make sense. I hadn't counted with the template itself being edited, which means that you now don't see how it looked when checking older revisions. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No apologies are needed, I was just explaining. Shambala108 ☎  23:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, to clear the air surrounding T:NO RW and Epsilon insisting it's never been taken to apply to navboxes (which might very well be true), does anyone know of a discussion about the scope of navboxes that constitutes policy here? Because the old Panopticon forums do not have a relevant thread, I checked (indeed, the threads that exist took place before modern navboxes were implemented), T:MAN doesn't have anything, and there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the issue on navbox talk pages. There could be something in the boards that have been closed to us, I can't check. But has this issue already been resolved, or, perhaps, were clear rules for navboxes never made? Najawin ☎  00:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is though, these navboxes are supposed to help/lead users to relevant pages. What actual purpose would they serve if they omitted links to dozens of pages, simply because they're not connected in-universe? And navboxes are clearly out of universe, so it seems perfectly acceptable for them to be organised like this.
 * I genuinely don't understand your issues with the navboxes @Najawin. It perplexes me. Epsilon  📯 📂 00:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear, it's not just my issue, it's an issue others have as well. But for me, at least, it's sort of a first order/second order distinction. Iron Man is a Marvel Character even if we have to violate T:NO RW to say that. Hulk is something that Marvel Comics "talks about". Jack Kirby on the other hand is not something that Marvel Comics "talks about", he's someone who created Captain America who is "talked about" by Marvel Comics, and Benedict Cumberbatch plays Doctor Strange who is "talked about" by Marvel Comics, etc. They're just not the same thing and you need to do an additional step of reasoning as opposed to the comic book entities. Najawin ☎  00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But the information is relevant! Not every account about Marvel characters is consistent, and in many instances, the characters are depicted as merely fictional. Therefore, the in-universe people who created that fiction are equally relevant. I would say their exclusion would be against T:NPOV, but this isn't an in-universe topic, so it might not necessarily be the same, however I think the principles still apply. These navboxes are, in my opinion, highly resourceful as they contain all information that pertains to Marvel Comics, whether it be Stan "The Man" Lee or the Infinity Stones. I'd argue that Stan "The Man" Lee is actually more relevant than Infinity Stones imo. Epsilon  📯 📂 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Politely, this in no way understands my point. I'm talking about the steps of reasoning needed to connect things to Marvel Comics and how Marvel Comics as a text relates to these things OOU (eg, Jack Kirby did not create "Marvel Comics", he created specific characters for "Marvel Comics", while those characters are something that are contained within "Marvel Comics", 2nd order vs 1st order). Treating them as fictional in no way impugns this. Najawin ☎  01:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I do not think that the in-universe versions of the real world people behind Marvel Comics are in any way less relevant than the characters themselves. Epsilon  📯 📂 01:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with Najawin here and would not place the Marvel template on this page. – n8 (☎) 01:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well in some sense it's trivially less relevant, namely, it's less relevant to the analogues of in-universe Marvel Comics properties portrayed in the DWU. It's not then less relevant to the cultural phenomena of Marvel Comics as portrayed in the DWU, but it's not immediately obvious why we should care about one over the other. So you saying "I don't think it's less relevant" just isn't a rejoinder here - I can insist that the type of relevance we should care about is the other and we're forever at an impasse.

Hence why I tried to avoid the topic of relevance altogether. Instead I proposed that we focus on how many OOU leaps of logic are needed to connect the topic to the template, and suggested we stop at one. Note that if we go to two we apply it to The Doctor as well, as we consider it from the perspective of a publisher rather than a rights holder (note I said "properties" in my first sense of relevance, so using that doesn't just give us the Doctor), and then note that yes, at one point, The Doctor was in comics published by Marvel. At three or maybe just two as well, depending on how we interpret Marvel UK, we get Jim Sheldrake. Najawin ☎  01:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the case about the Doctor is actually quite different to how you seemingly perceive it.
 * A Letter from the Doctor explicitly shows the Fourth Doctor acknowledging and supporting Doctor Who Weekly, which not only involves a comic strip about him, but is also unambiguously published by Marvel Comics. He is actually one of the few who have explicit confirmation within a valid source to be connected to Marvel Comics. Epsilon  📯 📂 01:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a connection to the words "Marvel Comics" is not quite relevant to what I'm discussing. So to clarify, does the Doctor mention the comic strip within Doctor Who Weekly? If not, we have a bit of an issue. Merely being related to the company and not the text isn't exactly what I'm suggesting here. How are we to cache out the Doctor's actions from this story ending in something within the text of Marvel Comics? Doctor Strange exists within the text, that's first order, illustrator A drew character B who exists, that's second order, and if we're given IU confirmation that B exists w/I the text of Marvel Comics then it's first order. How do we link together a chain of events so that the Doctor, in this story, relates back to something in the text of Marvel Comics?
 * If the Doctor actually mentions "yeah, there's a comic about me in DWW", yeah, you're right, you got it. But the page you're referencing doesn't indicate that at all. So does that line exist, or do we have to find a line from telling people that Marvel Comics as a company exists to talking about the text of Marvel Comics? Because that sounds like a difficult ask. Najawin ☎  02:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've honestly confused me, so I'm just linking the page. It quite clearly states that the Doctor has allowed Doctor Who Weekly to use his journal as the base for their panoramas. Quite clearly showing that within the pages of Doctor Who Weekly that they're telling stories about the Doctor.
 * The page in question. Epsilon  📯 📂 02:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I started looking at that as soon as you uploaded it. Different letters, slightly ambiguous wording (like, we can fill in the gaps, but plausible deniability exists), huh. Honestly could go either way. That's a weird one, it really could go in the "you've got the connection" bag or we just rule that too tenuous and require the work to be done another way. Regardless, we got off track, which is me asking if such a discussion has been had. You then wanted to know what my problem was, sure, but I think I've justified that having such a problem is defensible, even if you don't agree with it. (Honestly I've just been trying to explain my view but then we got sidetracked by this issue.) Just saying "it's relevant" doesn't seem to me to be sufficient, for the reason I gave, there are multiple ways to frame relevance, and I think it would be helpful for our discussion if there was prior policy on navboxes, or at least for us to know whether it exists. Najawin ☎  02:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)