Talk:Infinity Gems/Archive 1

Gem Quest?
Never heard of that storyline. Should it be removed from the article? Luis Dantas 02:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Silver Surfer v.3 appearances
The Gems appeared in Silver Surfer #15-17 when the Surfer, Reed and Sue Richards went into a black hole to obtain the Gems in order to save the life of Galactus. Sadly I don't know where this storyline fits into the grand scheme of things, so I don't want to do a slipshod edit of the Gems' possessors. At the very least, though, Reed and Sue should be counted in the Soul Gem list. Korvac 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up
Have added references, another picture, and tidied up the grammar and make it a little easier on the eyes.


 * Pulled Darkseid as he was never really in possession of the gems. He found the Gauntlet, was shown for all of two panels with it and that was it. As Darkseid never even got to use the gems and the story was a crossover, his claim is not as strong as the Marvel characters.

Asgardian 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Time and Power colors
In the article, Time's color is written as (orange/red*), and Power's is written as (red/pink*). However, there is nothing connected to the asterisks to further explain.Ophois 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StarlinGems2.jpg
Image:StarlinGems2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thanos-Gems.jpg
Image:Thanos-Gems.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Infinity Gauntlet 1.jpg
The image Image:Infinity Gauntlet 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

List of owners of collected gems and/or the Infinity Gauntlet
There are a considerable number of characters (I count at least 10, and that's not counting the War of the Gems video-game wielders, that I took from the old listings) who have possessed either the collected gems (sometimes minus the reality and/or soul gems) or the Infinity Gauntlet. If they are not listed anywhere, they inevitably get added one by one to each of the individual gem owner lists, which I think is unwieldy, and usually the list is incomplete. Additionally, the collected gems' power is displayed as exceeding the powers of the individual gems, in my opinion warranting a separate description. Accordingly, I've created a separate table row for the collected gems/the gauntlet. I invite comments on this setup.

Asgardian, I noticed you'd deleted the table row during your cleanup, with a remark about the Infinity Thrall needing references. I've restored it with the references. Also, when I previously added the row for the Set/Infinity Gauntlet, I had moved information from the other rows to the new row (such as the names of common owners), so if and when the Wikipedia community decides to remove the row, or if you remove it temporarily while the matter is under discussion, the set/gauntlet owners should probably be re-added to each of the individual gem's owner lists. InfinityMinusOneMRV (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After some thought, I've removed it again, as it is problematic. Some of the information is incorrect and also repeats what is mentioned in the entry for the Ego gem. A list of who has held the Gauntley - certainly one of that length - is unnecessary, and video games are non-canon. I will rework the entry about the Thrall for inclusion. Asgardian (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. In that case, the header should be changed back to "Prior owners (of individual gems)" (as otherwise the column contents wouldn't be correct for the column header), and some care should be taken that full set/gauntlet members are not re-added to the individual gem owners. Possibly a permanent note on the talk page would suffice, but I'd suggest a small text in the page, above or underneath the table, stating that the full set/gauntlet owners are described in the history. Alternatively someone (not me) could police the page and revert any such changes. InfinityMinusOneMRV (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As a side note, what information do you think is incorrect? The video game listings I have no information on (and I agree with you that they are non-canon, I just didn't feel it was my place to remove them if people wanted them here), but the other owner names I can all vouch for, and support with precise comic issue title-and-number references if necessary. InfinityMinusOneMRV (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How are they worn?
How does someone use a single gem? Do they have to hold it in their hand? Does it attach to the owner somehow? 66.167.147.162 16:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Typically the wielder wears it on their forehead. The gems can obviously adhere to a host. I'm thinking we also need sources for those claims about gem abilities.

Asgardian 08:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Any kind of contact is enough. Adam Warlock, Moondragon, and most of the elders of the unitverse always wore them on their forehead, Thanos just held them in his hand (or gauntlet, obviously), Pip the troll had his in between his toes and Drax the destroyer swallowed his. 213.220.223.200 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I imagine with objects as powerful as these, 'wearing' them is irrelevant. Lots42 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rumor
Supposedly a Gauntlet appears in Ultimate Origins. Definitely noteable if true. Lots42 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reality Gem
Only five of the gems appear in Avengers/Two-In-One crossover story mentioned on this page. The reality gem wasn't present; as far as I know, it wasn't even mentioned until its first appearance in The Thanos Quest. (70.92.176.224 (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC))


 * No it's the full six that appear but they hadn't been individually named at this stage. The only distinction was that only Warlock's could steal souls (and so Thanos didn't collect it directly) but otherwise IIRC prior to The Thanos Quest the gems were never individually identified by name or power or colour. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What are they called in GotG?
I have seen a lot of edit-warring in various articles to use various names for the Gems. Can anyone provide a definitive name for what they are called in the GotG film, or does the film use varying names for them? 2601:D:B480:ED2:1CE:F234:F2BE:9D69 (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IP, what articles are those? Also, within the MCU, the comic Infinity Gems are known as the Infinity Stones. So far we have officially seen the Space Stone via the Tesseract, the Power Stone via the GotG Orb, and a third, unnamed stone via the Aether. Sources for these are all on the article in the Film section. Media outlets have been using "Gems" occasionally instead of "Stones", but Feige stated in an interview they are stones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Mind Gem in The Avengers movie?
The scepter given to Loki by Thanos at the beginning of The Avengers is powered by a blue gem. Loki uses the scepter to control the minds of others, from Hawkeye to the Chitauri army. It is never explicitly stated in the film that it's the Mind Gem, but then that sort of thing is rarely articulated.Wyldstaar (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The mind gem was shown to be on the Infinity Gauntlet in Odin's treasure room in Thor. I doubt Thanos stole the gauntlet (or only the one gem) and then gave it away. But hey, if you can find a reliable source, I won't argue. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Infinity Gauntlet appears in Thor so briefly that it can only be seen if you view it in slow motion. Even then, it's only in four frames of footage.  If Joss Whedon chose to do a bit of revisionist history, I don't think it would be a problem.  I'm not saying that it's definitely the Mind Gem, just that it seems like a strong possibility.  Wyldstaar (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The film explicitly states that Loki's scepter is powered by the Tesseract; that's why it is able to close the portal. Having it look very similar to the Mind Gem could have been intentional, but that does not matter without a reference. Kurt Parker (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the film, it's Nick Fury who states that Loki's scepter is powered by the Tesseract. Nick has a nasty habit of telling lies when it's convenient to him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyldstaar (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Loki's Scepter is definitely the Mind Gem. It's never been confirmed but it's a fairly safe bet. The idea that it is powered by Tesseract is just Nick Fury's opinion, and the fact that it has a similar powersource to the Tesseract gives it away. To breach the Tesseracts protective field you would need an Equal power source. Hence it could really only be another Infinity stone. The Infinity Gauntlet appears in Odin's Throne room, but it contains EVERY gem. As the Gauntlet is full. (It is the same physical object that was displayed at Comic Con) If this is not just fanservice it is most likely a Gauntlet from another universe. They only work in their native Universes, so removing it from its origin Universe and giving it someone with the power to protect it properly, like Odin the Allfather, would be a viable strategy to get rid of one.Exodus111 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your source Exodus111? No original research. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Guardians of the Galaxy re-confirms that the Sceptre is not the Mind Gem (I say re-confirms as The Avengers already confirmed that it was simply powered by the Tesseract, and Thanos would never hand over an Infinity Stone to Loki, just to get another Infinity Stone, just as he relied on Ronan's own power as the Accuser to retrieve the Power Stone in GotG) - when the Collector was giving the history of the Stones, we see an image (scroll down into the comments) of the Stones forming, each a different colour: purple in the centre for the power stone, red for the Aether, and blue for the Tesseract. The other colours are yellow, orange, and green, nothing remotely like the colour of the gem in Loki's Sceptre. This is a pointless debate powered by fanboys who didn't pay attention when watching the films. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige has officially confirmed in their big Marvel Phase III press conference that the gem in Loki's staff is in fact one of the Infinity Gems. Here are three references, and there are plenty more available, as this entire press conference has been heavily reported on. Wyldstaar (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It now seems that despite the colour, Loki's sceptre is it's own Infinity Stone, so should we be adding notes, like at The Avengers page, to confirm this? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First, Feige never confirms anything. It is shown in the trailer for the Infinity War movie, thus implying that it is an Infinity Stone. We do not know which Stone it is, so the most we could possibly do, is use wording like on this page, that it is implied to be a Stone. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

All this discussion is irrelevant as of Avengers: Age of Ultron- the sceptre is confirmed to have the mind gem within it, which is actually yellow. Where Loki got it is a discussion for another talk page. Acbsmith (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Tesseract: Infinity Gem or Cosmic Cube?
Currently, the information on the Tesseract lives at the Cosmic Cube page, despite the fact that the Tesseract has been confirmed to be the Space gem both on and off the screen, whereas the phrase "cosmic cube" has not, in fact, been used in the MCU. I think we should move the information here. Acbsmith (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's necessary. The Tesseract has combined elements from the Cosmic Cube and the Space Stone. In MCU it has powers and status of the Space Stone, but form of the Cosmic Cube. CAJH (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Aether in the MCU
Unregistered users are constantly writing here that Aether from MCU is the Reality Stone, even though we have no official confirmation for that one. If the page needs to be blocked from them, it might take even until Avengers: Infinity War to have Aether's true name revealed. So, what are we going to do? CAJH (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Feige confirm it in an interview? In any case, it makes no sense for it to be the Soul or Time gems, which are the only other two options. I think that it's worth leaving there for consistency. Acbsmith (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as the type of an Infinity Stone remains unrevealed by producers, directors or even in the films themselves, it remains unconfirmed and something that shouldn't yet be added to Wikipedia. I want to believe that Aether is the Reality Stone, but Wikipedia has its rules. Fiege confirmed the Tesseract as the Space Stone and James Gunn confirmed the stone in Guardians of the Galaxy as Power Stone. The stone inside the Scepter was revealed as the Mind Stone in Avengers: Age of Ultron. CAJH (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just re-read the interview and he only confirms that it's an Infinity Gem- I was mistaken. Acbsmith (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for just dropping that AoU spoiler. Not everyone's seen the movie yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you didn't want to know what happened in the MCU, why are you reading encyclopaedia pages about it? Acbsmith (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not on the Age of Ultron page, am I? I didn't realize this was Infinity Gems in the MCU, and only the MCU. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This thread clearly has MCU in the title. Any article regarding the MCU has the potential for spoilers.  I've been avoiding returning to this page until I'd seen the film for that very reason.  I just saw AoU, so I came back.  You should have used better judgment.

To get back on topic, I agree that there should be no specifics in the article regarding the Aether as to which stone it's supposed to be until something solid is made public. That's why I only included my theory regarding Loki's scepter being the Mind Gem here on the talk page, rather than the actual article.Wyldstaar (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that- it seems the prudent thing to do. I think it should be listed as: ["The Aether" (Red) - As yet unconfirmed Infinity Stone.]  Also, we don't know which of time/soul is green/orange, so we shouldn't assume.  Not to be added to the page, but I'd bet that Soul will be introduced in GotG2 and Time in Thor 3. Acbsmith (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

New source added for Aether
Since it has not been stated "officially" by MCU production or in a film, can we still use it? Most outlets are saying it is the Reality one (I believe it myself), but is this them just inferring this info to the readers? Pinging (who added the source) and. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A better source as been added, that does not leave any doubt it is the reality (by process of elimination in regards to Feige's quote). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Strange gem?
An IP has repeatedly attempted to add a mention that "it is seemingly implied that the Time Stone will be appearing in Doctor Strange, will be the Green Stone, and will be contained in the Eye of Agamotto". The only sources provided thus far for this are   and the image at.

Any interpretation of the image is clearly original research, so not appropriate for supporting the claim. As to the other sources, they hinge around speculative interpretation of a statement in an interview - note: the interview itself never actually states the gem is in the film. As a result, they also run against the use of WP:CRYSTALBALL.

I'm starting the discussion here to get input from others on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Feige did heavily imply it, but you are right that we don't actually know yet. We shouldn't be saying anything here until we have reliable confirmation. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * May I ask a question? The links provided do also contain the source material for the quote, something most wikipedia users agree would count as a legitimate source to be added. Also, it seems a bit hypocritical to not allow this on here but at the same time have allowed the mention of "the Mind Gem being implied as being the scepter" or one of the other gems being implied as what they are before the official reveal of it being so, where it was in nearly the same situation as this (with obscure quotes from Marvel and Feige and such no less), among other things, on this page and I believe related pages as well. It was sitting there for a while with seemingly no attempt to revert it or anything before any official confirmation was given. Also, I believe that the EW interview does state that the Eye of Agamotto is what is doing this power, in a manner of speaking of course, so I'm not seeing where exactly the "picture being original research" or what have you counts, let alone matters in trying to disprove this. I am willing to remove the link to the picture as well as the other links besides the EW interview link if that would help get it and keep it on the page, as those other links are seemingly what the problem is. If for some reason that wont work, I am willing to hear what needs to be done to guarantee that it will get and remain on the page for sure with no problems ever again. I also apologize if my comment here came across as rude or disrespectful in any way, that wasnt my intent, I've noticed I sometimes have trouble wording things in a manner that comes across as respectful, even when my intent was respect and such, I am trying to work on it.


 * 173.55.141.232 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All Feige says is that the Eye allows Strange to "manipulate probabilities...which is also another way of saying, 'screw around with time'." This says nothing about the Time Stone. It is all the journalists and fans that have decided that he is implying it is the Time Stone. So, yes, Feige does say that Eye can "screw around with time", and your sources do reliably show that, but it is fanish speculation to say that the Eye is the Time Stone at this point. Have some patience, and if it turns out that the Eye is in fact the Time Stone, which I personally believe it is, then we will get some proper confirmation in due time. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Would it help my case if I say that im sure that "screwing around with time" isnt naturally one of its powers, and that this helps to show a link between the Time Stone and the statement? Also check your wording, as it seems to have helped my case a bit, you say "but it is fanish speculation to say that the Eye is the Time Stone at this point" when if you look at what I originally wrote and everything since then I have never actually said that it "is for sure" as your comment seems to imply that I did, only that it is speculated, which also seems to go with what you are saying as well, in other words we are both correct. Also you never did touch on any of the other points in my original talk page post in this section (such as the seeming hypocracy for example), it makes it seem as though you didnt actually read it, or that you read only a little bit and ignored the rest, even if that isnt what you actually did. Its ok though a lot of people on the internet do that, because it seems like they are only trying to get there point across, and dont care what others have to say against it, even though that may not have been how you wanted it to come across, that is how it actually does come across. I again apologize as I feel this came across as rude without me intending for it to.


 * 173.55.141.232 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just a case of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. We need explicit verification that A=B. So in this case that the Eye is the Time Stone. Anything else is theories or thoughts on the user. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Youve allowed things on here (here being wikipedia in general) before without them being explicitly verified, such as the "Mind Gem being implied to be the Scepter" thing I mentioned earlier but was seemingly ignored, or many other instances of things in films like characters being cast incorrectly or assumed as one character or what have you (such as Commons Suicide Squad character that was only recently fixed to be "undisclosed role" after months of sitting there as Tattooed Man), I know I have had to point out a good amount before anything is even thought to be done about them, and things that could easily be counted as "original research" are allowed to be on here (again here being Wikipedia in general) as well (again with the "Mind Gem" thing, the links attached to it before the confirmation were even worse speculation than you think this would be, I looked at them and out of the 3 or so that were provided only one gave a speculative at best answer with the rest of them not even mentioning it at all, in other words being off topic, yet that was allowed to exist on Wikipedia up until the confirmation in May 2015, it had been there for at least a year or year and a half (so since like mid 2013 or sometime in 2014) in some form if I remember correctly, and nothing was done about it), and they stay for weeks or months at a time, sometimes even years with seemingly no effort to revert them or anything of the like, so please tell me as to why this is a different situation than that (other than you percieving it as OR and speculation and throwing rules at it to see what sticks, but not doing so to other bits of info very similar to this). There seems to be a lot of hypocracy going on here. Im willing to make a compromise, I would benefit by having the information I am trying to post stay up there and then be edited by myself if the films confirm something different, and in exchange you would benefit from me going around and making the site better by fixing mistakes in casting, giving legitimate info, etc. Giving you more traffic to the site, being a more reliable and information accurate site (which I know you would like to be), etc. That way you wont have to waste your time doing that and I will instead be wasting my time, which allows you to do more of what you want rather than what you "need" to do. That seems pretty fair to me, if you would like the compromise changed or whatever, please let me know.


 * 173.55.141.232 (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a negotiation - either the material meets Wikipedia content guidelines or it does not. The fact that other issues exist is not a valid argument to add more content that fails inclusion criteria - it's instead an indication that there's more data to be cleaned up elsewhere. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the Mind Gem thing, are you referring to when this article said "Loki's scepter was seen in the trailer for Avengers: Infinity War, seemingly implying it is an Infinity Stone"? Because that is clearly a different case. There, Marvel showed a video about all the Infinity Stones so far, showing all the ones we had already had confirmed plus the sceptre. It was pretty much as close to confirmation as you can get without them actually saying it. Here, Feige is telling us that something in Doctor Strange can "screw around with time". There is nothing there about the Time Stone, but everyone is deciding that it is the Time Stone because the many of the MCU films are dealing with the Infinity Stones. Feige doesn't actually imply anything, definitely not enough for us to state here, but because everyone knows that the Time Stone is coming, they are using his statement as proof that this is it. Like I said, I believe that the Eye is the Time Stone, but for now the only connection between the Eye and the Time Stone is in the heads of the fans, while the connection between the Sceptre and the Infinity Stones was made in the same, straight-from-Marvel video. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No, all it said was something to the effect of "the Scepter is implied to be the Mind Stone" without any mention of the video in relation to it on the site. Also, you seem to be forgetting that at the time of that video releasing, the way they showed it in the video and such there was more speculation on whether it was or wasnt, than with this as you say in your comment "but because everyone knows that the Time Stone is coming, they are using his statement as proof that this is it" the same can be said of the Mind Stone and the Scepter from around that point "but because everyone knew the Mind Stone was coming at that point, they were using the video as proof that that was it" same amount of speculation, same everything, the only difference being one is in a video format where as the other is in a text format (both straight from Marvel and Feige as well, so still both the same amount of reliability), other than the video/text difference I see no other difference between the two situations, the scepter could have easily been an item they used to track the other gems, or was able to replicate the powers of the holder (Loki being a trickster and the Scepter messing with the mind), or had something else to do with them that wouldnt have made it an Infinity Gem. See, the same amount of speculation and such could still be applied to that situation. All the Gems have had a "pretty close to confirmed as you can get without actually saying it" situation, it is only after the Gems were officially shown that any confirmation about which one they were was actually given (Feige confirmed the Tesseract was the Space Stone after the Fact, James Gunn confirmed on Twitter about the Orb being the Power Stone after the fact, etc.), I believe even the orb was at one point speculated as a stone before it was confirmed as such, yet it still showed up on here as well despite that.


 * Also to Barek, I was saying that those specific issues existed, not that they currently exist, and yet those issues were clearly against the rules as well yet they were allowed to exist when they did without anyone doing anything, so clearly either some kind of hypocracy is going on here, you guys saw the issues but didnt care, or you were unaware of the issues, im doubting you guys were unaware as these are popular pages and so someone would have likely seen something at some point.


 * Back to Adam, I think we are both saying the same thing, we just have different ways of saying it, in other words we are both correct. I sometimes have trouble explaining things in a way that makes sense to most others, but I think we are both getting to the same conclusion, just using different evidences and such to get there.


 * 173.55.141.232 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulty following what you are saying, but ultimately we have decided that Feige's quote isn't enough to add here. We may have made some mistakes at some point, but that doesn't excuse doing it now. So if you want to avoid hypocrisy, then keep calling out things that you think we have allowed that we probably shouldn't have. It does help. But make sure it is things that are still a problem, because we can't really do anything about issues from years ago. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not meaning to be rude, but are you really having difficulty following what I'm saying or are you just saying that you are to keep yourself out of trouble (that does happen so I'm just making sure), if so which parts are you having trouble following? Ill hopefully be able to clarify to make it easier to understand. In this situation making a mistake excuses it now (Im seeing it as more of a "if you allow one person to do a thing then you have to allow everyone else to do it as well" situation, but only for this specific situation not for every problem on the site in general) in other words you allowed the "Mind Gem/Scepter" thing to be on the site, and its the same thing as this so you kinda have to allow it, which is probably also part of the reason why things like film and tv casting are always messed with, you allowed one mistake like that to go through so now everyone thinks they are allowed to do it as well since someone else did it, even if that isnt the case, basically its a learning experience for you guys on how to better yourselves and the site among other things. Also to the part of sending in problems or whatever as I see them, I usually try to point them out, or just correct it myself if I feel its not a big enough problem to point out. Also Im very well aware that you cant fix problems from years ago (I never said you could anyways), I was simply stating those problems to help with my argument, not stating that those are things needing fixed now (sorry if it somehow came across like that). I also feel as though there may be some hidden bias since Im a new/infrequent editor, where as there wouldnt be any if I was an admin or mod or more frequent user, and feel there is a lack of faith or trust or something about this (I think there is a Wikipedia rule about having faith in someone elses edit or whatever that contains the word faith or something like that in the rule title), note that Im not saying there is a bias, simply that it feels like one exists, probably because im new/infrequent on the site. 173.55.141.232 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to try to keep this simple, based on a little facet I was able to get out all this text above. The IP mentioned a time when the page said, "In October 2014, during a press conference for Marvel's Phase Three films, Loki's scepter was seen in the trailer for Avengers: Infinity War, seemingly implying it is an Infinity Stone." (see here). This is not the same situation as them trying to add the Eye as the Time Stone, because we had a reliable source state, from Marvel's video presentation and translating that information to readers of the source, that Loki's scepter was a stone. But outside of that video, Marvel had not confirmed, through press or films, this to be the case, so that is why "seemingly implying" was added, in order for us the editors to tell the readers we are not using the properly sourced info as absolute fact. There could still be doubt, but because we have a reliable source explicitly stating such, it's pretty likely. So back to this situation, you don't have a reliable source saying Eye = Time Stone. That's your inference, and any source you do find would be that author's inference, because it all goes back to the EW article and Feige's quotes, which just says it "screws around with time". That can be a bunch of things. We are beholden to WP:V. Everything much be sourced and presented factually, and in a way that won't be challenged. And yeah, there's a bunch of original research all over Wikipedia. That doesn't make you trying to add this here any more right than those. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Also I can debunk the inclusion of all your sources you tried adding right now. 1: The original EW source. We've already said Feige makes no mention of the Time Stone, so you saying its the Eye is original research. 2-5: Screen Crush, ScreenRant, Comicbook and CinemaBlend. All of these reference the EW article and Feige's quotes, and then each in their own way ask "is it the time stone?" So those are all WP:RUMOR because it is nothing definitive. Any other source you were to bring is going to be the same situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually you are somewhat incorrect as when it was viewed on my end there was no mention of the trailer in relation to it. Also what is this reliable source you had stating and translating the information?, I would personally like to check it out myself to see if it is actually legit and reliable or if you are just using it to try and get me to go away and whatever and it actually not be legit or reliable. Also, this probably wouldnt be happening if you hadnt put the "seemingly implied" thing for the mind stone, as that made it seem to us that it would be ok to source information and such in such a manner, so in a way it is in part your fault. Also it is great that you put what you did so that the readers know that in a way you are keeping secrets and legit info from them.


 * Also, why is it that everyone twists my words to suit there argument? I never once stated in any of this that the Eye is Definitively the Time Stone, only that it is/can be implied or inferred to being such, and this whole discussion has just been about whether or not to put the info on the page, with arguments from both sides, so no where was it stated that the Eye definitely is the Time Stone, and I hate that you tried to insult me/give me a bad rep and such by trying to make it sound as though I said something I never did.


 * 173.55.141.232 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously? "I would personally like to check it out myself to see if it is actually legit and reliable or if you are just using it to try and get me to go away and whatever and it actually not be legit or reliable"? This isn't a war, where it is everyone against you! We are all just trying to get the best possible outcome, which is in this case the removal of incorrect, unsourced information from the article. You keep bringing up unrelated things as if you are trying to distract us from the real problem, which is the removal of "From Interviews Marvel had with Entertainment Weekly as well as Entertainment Weekly Magazines Doctor Strange Cover it is seemingly implied that the Time Stone will be appearing in Doctor Strange, will be the Green Stone, and will be contained in the Eye of Agamotto." The fact is that that is just not the case. Feige said that the Eye in the movie can screw around with time, and they showed a picture of it in which it looks kind of green, and you decided that "the Time Stone will be appearing in Doctor Strange, will be the Green Stone, and will be contained in the Eye of Agamotto". That is WP:SYNTH, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Nothing else is relevant here, only those facts. There is no bias, no conspiracy against you, or anything else. There is just you trying to add something against Wikipedia rules, and us removing it. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Im not saying its a war, what I am saying is for me to check it out so that I can verify it can be used as sound evidence for your case or if its something trying to be said simply to make me "cease and desist" but doesnt actually have anything you can truely use to back up your argument. It feels as though you are only trying to get what you believe to be the best possible outcome due to "oh we are higher ups so we can say and do whatever we want even though it may not actually be best" you may not have wanted it to come across that way, but that is how it is coming across. You are again editing/twisting my words to try and make your argument more valid, yes part of what I put was "the stone will appear in doctor strange, etc." however what you are purposefully missing is the part right before where I state "it is seemingly implied that..." which changes the context from "it is definitely without a doubt 100% for sure that the Eye is definitely the Stone" as you are arguing I am saying, and changes it to "based on what has been provided to us it is likely that this is the case, but it also may not be, I am incapable of currently determining if it is for certain or not though, but the possibility is definitely there" which is what Ive actually been saying this whole time. Its funny how 5 little words could be so important yet so easily missed, dont you agree? So are you going to provide your source or should I just assume you dont actually have a source and its just a tactic you are trying to use to try and make your argument and this discussion go the way you want it to?

173.55.141.232 (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Claiming something may or may not be true flies directly in the face of WP:RUMOR (same link as WP:CRYSTAL, which was also provided to you earlier). The words are not being missed - they are at the heart of why the material is not appropriate for Wikipedia at this time. Eventually, if/when it is confirmed via a reliable source, then it would be appropriate to add to the article. Until then, it is not. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @173.55.141.232, earlier you said "it seems a bit hypocritical to not allow this on here but at the same time have allowed the mention of "the Mind Gem being implied as being the scepter" or one of the other gems being implied as what they are before the official reveal of it being so, where it was in nearly the same situation." If you scroll up on this page, you'll see the inclusion of those statements has been fought pretty much every time. Just because you saw those edits before they were reverted doesn't mean we're being unfair to you now. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And we realise that you originally said "it is seemingly implied that" but we are telling you that it is not seemingly implied, you are just making up the connection, which goes against WP:SYNTH. That is not us thinking we are somehow better than you or trying to use some power to do whatever we want, this is us trying to uphold the regulations and rules of Wikipedia, regardless of whether us or anyone else here has done so elsewhere or previously. We do want you to "cease and desist", but not because we think you have caught us out at anything or something like that, but because there is only one logical conclusion to this debate—that the information you were adding does not belong—and you are simply wasting our time at this point. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Time and Soul stones
In reply to this edit by Favre1fan93, let me explain why I removed the sentence, "The remaining Stones, Time and Soul, are shown in Guardians of the Galaxy to be green and orange". It is confusing as written. The sentence might imply that the Time stone is green and the Soul stone orange, which would contradict how the stones are depicted as the comics (in which as the chart about the gems states, it's the reverse, the Soul stone being green and the time stone orange). Do you really want the article to contain this confusing and probably incorrect information? It would be better to leave that detail out, especially since the film doesn't identify which stone is which color. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The films have shown that they aren't sticking to the comics, and if the rumours about the (green) Eye of Agamotto being the Time Stone are true, then that will indeed be the case given that it is the Soul Gem that is green in the comics, as you pointed out. However, we would only actually be saying that at this point if we said "The remaining Stones, Time and Soul, are shown in Guardians of the Galaxy to be green and orange, respectively", which we are not. All we are currently saying is "The remaining Stones are shown in Guardians of the Galaxy to be green and orange", with the added note of what those remaining Stones are called, "Time and Soul". - adamstom97 (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I watched GotG - Does that exposition scene actually describe them as having power over time and soul? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer the above question, if I remember correctly the scene doesnt describe any of the stones other than the Power Stone (it says something like "they were formed from 6 singularities" but to my knowledge none of them are actually really described at all beyond that, apart from the Power Stone, I could be wrong though). However, the scene does show a Green Stone and an Orange Stone along with the revealed Red, Yellow, Blue, and Purple Stones that we now know of. I do believe though at some point during a convention or interview or something Marvel/Kevin Feige have said that the last two are Time and Soul, its kinda late here, and I dont have time to search for videos or such to see if that is the case, but im thinking I vaguely remember that happening, so if someone can confirm or deny that happening it would be of great help, and put it in in such a way that Wikipedia wouldnt count it as Original Research would be helping as well (I know sometimes that kind of stuff can be confusing as to whether it is or isnt). As for the main part of this subject, would it be better to reword that part rather than just outright removing it? Maybe something like "as seen in Guardians of the Galaxy, the remaining Stones are Green and Orange, one of which is the Time Gem, the other of which is the Soul Gem" or however it would work according to Wikipedia rules and whatever. While I do agree that the respectively does help, I can see where some might be confused with the original way it was worded.

76.174.79.74 (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Soul World stand-alone article
Currently, Soul World redirects to this article page. I have been working on a stand-alone article for Soul World, and think it's ready for main space. I would ordinarily "be bold" and just do it, but 2 problems: #1- I am not terribly familiar with redirects and how they function, so I don't want to screw anything up by just deleting the redirect and adding the text. And #2- I would prefer a couple of folks in-the-know, as it were, to give a "thumbs up" before I make such a big edit. The article is in my sandbox here: User:Ditch Fisher/sandbox/Soul World (comics). Any guidance would be appreciated. Ditch &#8733; 20:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the sources you use in your draft are from Wikia/blog sites, which can not be used to source content in articles. They are sometimes fine to link in an external links section to give readers additional places to gather info, but you can't support your written claims with them. If you want to take the time to work on adding reliable sources, then you can see again about moving it into the mainspace. You should also ask for assistance from the comics project (WP:COMICS) when you are ready, as more eyes will see the request and may be interested in helping you get the draft ready. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I have run into this type of thing before.  I can't help but notice that the sources for this article (Infinity Gems) are comprised of either specific comic book issues (which, it seems to me, would be original research), or video game/movie-news websites that are not really talking about the source material, and are basically blogs with paid web domains. Not exactly peer-reviewed journals.  But, I suppose the fact that other stuff exists is not a good argument. I will just keep it in my sandbox until someone writes a dissertation on comic book locations. It's not like we have a lot of articles about that type of subject anyway. Cheers.  Ditch &#8733;  21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Specific comic book issues are acceptable as primary sources on the matter. But you should strive for third party sources talking about the content if at all possible. As to the sources on this article, the video game/film sources are used to cite the "In other media" content, as they should be, and that doesn't really apply to the article you are looking to create. Though sources like IGN, Comic Book Resource, or Newsarama may be useful in finding third party info on Soul World if you choose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Citing specific issues is fine when summarizing fictional elements. For real-world discussion this or this may have something useful. I can't view them directly because of a content filter. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I believe both links will be helpful in getting the article where need it to be, source-wise. I really appreciate the effort. I am in no rush, so will continue to look for the best sources, and bring the revised article back here for a second look sometime in the future.  Ditch &#8733;  23:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Grammar
Past versions of the article have contained the following passage (referring to the space gem), "The gem allows its user to teleport themselves and others any place they can imagine regardless of distance or preventive measures such as walls or spells." The grammar of that sentence is obviously incorrect, and it is not even factually accurate, since in the comics it is the user of the gem who can transport himself or herself and other people to places, not the others who are transported. I have tried to correct the grammar of that passage, but unfortunately an IP editor has been restoring the bad grammar, visible here and here. I would ask the IP user to consider that it does not help articles to restore bad grammar without explanation and edit war to do so. If you do not like the wording I used, then please suggest some other (grammatical) alternative. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Infinity War plot details
As it happens, I've seen "Avengers: Infinity War", and I know the stuff about the Soul Stone is accurate. And I know Wikipedia doesn't do spoiler warnings per WP:SPOILER, 'but' publishing plot details for a work that is not yet publicly available does violate WP:V, as the details are essentially unverifiable. On a personal note: I profoundly dislike whoever added these spoilers. But on a policy level, they are clearly not appropriate to include in the article until they are verifiable with public materials. Kindly refrain from adding them until Friday. Juansmith (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Name Change
Perhaps this page should be moved to the name of "Infinity Stones", as the popularity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has caused them to be referred to as 'stones' rather than their previous name, 'gems'.

ChrisWallace6969 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENTISM would most likely apply. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME must also be considered. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

MCU Table
With the growing number of MCU films and the culmination of the series based on the infinity gems, I've drafted a table to show their appearances in the films here and was curious if it would be worth it to include it somewhere, either here or on another page. Let me know your thoughts.

Dracomaster4 (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we'd need to present that sort of tracking for the readers. That seems like something better suited for a fan wikia than Wikipedia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In order to make an argument for such a table or a similar list, WP:LISTN should be satisfied to avoid WP:OR. I could find this reference that might be a useful citation because it lists the appearances (I couldn't find anything else similar). If the section is split from the article (it's a very notable aspect of the Infinity Saga), this table is justifiable.  w umbolo   ^^^  22:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)