Template talk:S.H.I.E.L.D.

Add new live action films?

Should the recent films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger) be included in the list of live action films in this template? S.H.I.E.L.D. is in all of the films, but does that qualify them for inclusion in this template? Spidey104 22:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no. And I'm don't think that the Ultimate Avengers films or the Howling Commandos belong here either. These aren't SHIELD titled or focused films or comics. - J Greb (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say no to those films, but it's important to take into account that Thor and Captain America haven't been released as of this time. Friginator (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The recent trend in navboxes seems to be to only included topic centered articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really have an opinion either way, but thought it was a possibility to add them and wanted the discussion. Thanks for your input! I think we can safely close the discussion with consensus to not include those recent live action films in the template. Spidey104 18:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove it if you would like to, but in the new Avengers film S.H.I.E.L.D. is more than just a minor part of the movie. If Ultimate Avengers 1 and 2 are included in the animated section of this template, than it is a no brainer to put in the new Avengers movie.Oldag07 (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Note my last comment came a year after the topic was last discussed. The new Avengers film is very different than the movies discussed above. Oldag07 (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up

This template is in dire need of clean-up. First as with all templates, the template should only contain links to articles, not sub-sections. So if the SHIELD related entry is not the primary topic of its own article it should be removed. Second, we already have a list of SHIELD agents, so listing them again is not only redundant but it clutters the page. We should limit this section, possibly to directors or some other limiting qualifier. Template:Avengers, does not list every member of the Avengers. Third as mentioned in the above thread, the media sections (as well as others) should only contain SHIELD centric entries.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's see...

1. I agree, the pointers to subsections should go. This is not an invitation to create content for articles just to keep the links.
   • Some of the the stand alone articles could likely get trimmed and folded into the parent article... Which also could use a trim.
2. A majority of the character articles are either fodder to be moved to the Marvel character list or are "special/honorary/deputy agents", Avengers, or retcons. Trimming this back to the initial characters would be a good idea, even if we allowed a little wiggle room like.
   • This may be moot, but an attempt to the comics "616" continuity and the various others might be a good idea.
   • The Ultimate section could, maybe, be broken out to it's own template. But...
     1. It wouldn't be an excuse to breaking out the Ultimate versions of the characters out to separate articles,
     2. Has the same inherent problem of adding latter characters as the got/get Ultimate/Avengers cards, and
     3. Shouldn't be pointing to articles where what is relevant is a minor portion of the overall article.
3. The "SHIELD-centric" point is going to be touchy. Three of the films, the WWII set Howling Commandos material, and a number of potential comics (if a publication/stories list gets added...) touch on, relate to, and/or are grounded in SHIELD, but SHIELD is not the central focus.

- J Greb (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the three Avengers films be removed, too? -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought so.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at least leave the membership of S.H.I.E.L.D. below the Directors' section so that it would accompany the section that I just listed? Rtkat3 (talk) 11:05, April 12 2013 (UTC)

It does not make sense to have a field with no entries, and if the membership article is to be listed solely then its probably better to do it in a related articles field, which normally is placed at the end.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I added it and was planning to add the templates to the different members I listed until you deleted the section. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:23, April 12 2013 (UTC)

Once again this tables is becoming bloated with non-articles and real-world articles. Also we had previous consensus to only include the directors, not every single character that has worked with the agency. That helps no one and makes the template hard for readers to navigate. Again we need limited ourselves and set up some sort of inclusion criteria. Limiting it to directors does this. I am restoring the template to the version at the time the consensus was reached.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Added SMASH

I've added Hulk and his Agents of S.M.A.S.H. Due to their relation with S.H.I.E.L.D.

Fazart (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Add Agents Section

Shouldn't there be a section for regular agents like Clay Quartermaine, Jimmy Woo, Val, Jasper Sitwell, etc.? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)